PEARCE v. BROCKWAY.

PEARCE v. BROCKWAY.
1932 OK 613
14 P.2d 389
159 Okla. 94
Case Number: 21275
Decided: 09/13/1932
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PEARCE
v.
BROCKWAY.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Verdict for Value of Services Reasonably Supported by Evidence not Disturbed on Ground of Excessiveness.
In an action tried to a jury, where the issue involved is the reasonable value of services rendered, this court, on appeal, will not disturb the verdict of the jury on the alleged ground that the recovery allowed is excessive, where there is competent evidence in the record which reasonably supports the judgment and from which the amount allowed may be calculated.

Appeal from District Court, Okmulgee County; E. A. Summers, Assigned Judge.

Action by George W. Brockway against W. E. Pearce. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Steele & Boatman, for plaintiff in error.
W. A. Barnett, for defendant in error.

HEFNER, J.

¶1 This is an action brought in the district court of Okmulgee county by George W. Brockway against W. E. Pearce to recover the sum of $ 1,800, reasonable value of his services rendered defendant as an oil well pumper; and for foreclosure of laborer's lien. The defense was that plaintiff agreed to accept an interest in the lease upon which the wells were located, to be paid in services at the rate of $ 20 per month. Trial was to a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $ 1,200, and a decree foreclosing the lien.

¶2 Defendant assigns numerous errors, but in his brief only discusses the assignment that the verdict is excessive.

¶3 Plaintiff testified that he worked for defendant as an oil well pumper for a period of 24 months without having received pay or compensation therefor; that at the time he was employed no agreement was entered into as to the amount he should receive for such services, he did not testify as to the value thereof, but several witnesses testified in his behalf that they were familiar with the character of services performed, and that the reasonable value thereof was not less than $ 75 per month. Defendant testified that at the time of the employment it was agreed that plaintiff was to accept for his services an interest in the lease upon which the wells were located, to be paid at the rate of $ 20 per month. Several witnesses testified on behalf of defendant that the reasonable value of the services rendered was only $ 20 per month; while other witnesses testified that plaintiff had stated to them that he was working for defendant and that he was to receive as his pay $ 50 per month.

¶4 Under this evidence, the jury found in favor of plaintiff, evidently calculating the amount of recovery at the rate of $ 50 per month. The amount is based upon this evidence and it cannot therefore be said that the verdict is excessive.

¶5 The judgment is affirmed.

¶6 Plaintiff requests that this court enter judgment on the supersedeas bond. It appears that such bond was given with W. W. Purvine, S. J. Thomas, and W. D. Throckmorton as sureties. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $ 1,200, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. from October 29, 1929, until paid; $ 100 for attorney's fees; and cost of suit. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as requested.