Calada Materials Co. v. Collins

VALLÉE, J.

Appeal by defendant B. W. Walker from an adverse judgment in an action for the value of oil well drilling materials alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to defendants M. H. Collins and B. W. Walker.

The complaint is in three counts: one in

indebitatus assumpsit

on account of oil well drilling materials furnished by plaintiff to defendants at their special instance and request 5 one for

[252]

the reasonable value of the materials; and one on an account stated. Bach count alleged the amount to be $11,133.99. The judgment was against defendants M. H. Collins and R W. AValker individually and doing business as a partnership under the name Collins and Walker for the amount alleged as owing with interest. Walker, referred to as defendant, appealed, Collins did not.

Plaintiff delivered mud and mud materials in connection with the drilling of two oil wells, Higdon No. 3 and C & W No. 1. Defendant concedes he is liable for an unpaid balance of $5,338.21 plus interest for materials furnished by plaintiff for Higdon No. 3. He denies he is responsible for any part of $5,795.28 for materials furnished by plaintiff for C & W No. 1.

The court found that at all times mentioned in the complaint defendants Collins and Walker were doing business as a partnership under the firm name of Collins and Walker. Defendant contends the finding is unsupported by the evidence as to “the project to drill the second well”—C & W No. 1. He says the record cannot support a finding on any theory that he be held liable to plaintiff for the material furnished in the drilling of C & W No. 1.

The two wells were drilled by the same contractor. Work on Higdon No. 3 was completed in October 1955. The rig was immediately “skidded” about 450 feet and C & W No. 1 was drilled. Collins and Walker testified the relationship between them was the same as to both wells. Plaintiff furnished the materials for both wells. Walker signed the contract with the drilling contractor with respect to C & W No. 1. This contract named Collins and Walker as “Operator” and provided that mud and mud materials would be furnished at the expense of “Operator.” On one occasion Walker, speaking of the lease on which C & W No. 1 was drilled, said “he was a partner with Collins and backing him and anything Collins did he was with him as long as it was all right with Mr. Collins.” When Walker signed the drilling contract for C & W No. 1 he was asked, “You are partners in the deal, aren’t you?” Walker replied, “Yes.” During the drilling of C & W No. 1 there were signs on the rig and on trailers around the site reading, “Collins-Walker, C & W No. 1.” On several occasions Collins introduced Walker as his partner with respect to C & W No. 1. Walker told plaintiff’s manager that he and Collins were partners in C & W No. 1 and that plaintiff would get part of the money, if not all of it, in a few days and that Collins would pay him. The parties were talking about past bills for Higdon No. 3 and about future money for C & W