Pugh-Miller Drilling Co. v. Main Oil Co.

FINCH, P. J.

The plaintiff was given judgment against all the defendants for the amount of two promissory notes for $1500 and $750, respectively, executed by the Main Oil Company and indorsed by the members of its board of directors, and also against the Main Oil Company alone for the further sum of $1250 for the hire of an oihwell drilling machine, being at the rate of $50 a day from March 27 to April 21, 1925. The defendants Main Oil Company, Leonards, Minor and Allen have appealed from the judgment.

There is no conflict in the evidence relating to the execution and indorsement of the promissory notes or the use by the Main Oil Company of the drilling machine at the alleged rate per day. The defendants resisted payment of. the plaintiff’s demands on three grounds: 1. That, the promise

[299]

sory notes were obtained by duress; 2. That H. L. Ball and C. C. Boatright, and not the plaintiff, were the real parties in interest; 3. That the corporation defendant was entitled to a credit of $3,983.51 for the cost of replacements made by it on the drilling machine.

The machinery in question was sold by the plaintiff to Ball and Boatright on a conditional sale or lease contract. Thereafter the purchasers entered into a contract to drill a well -for the corporation defendant. They entered upon the work and' after it had been in progress for some time, the plaintiff made demand upon Ball and Boatright for payments which had become due and stated, in the presence of one of defendants, a director of - the Main Oil Company, that if payment was not made the plaintiff would take possession of the machinery under the terms of the sale contract and remove it. In order to prevent the removal of the machinery. the defendants paid the plaintiff $1,000 “on the instruction of Ball and Boatright,” gave the promissory notes in suit, and agreed to pay the plaintiff “a rental of $50 a day” for subsequent use of the machinery “for the account of Ball and Boatright.”

Appellants contend that the plaintiff demanded that the defendants agree to make payments for Ball and Boat-right, under their contract to purchase, with the alternative of the removal of the machinery; that “a cessation of the work at that juncture would have been disastrous”; and that such conduct on the part of the plaintiff “amounted to duress.” Mr. Pugh testified that he made a demand for payment on Ball and Boatright, but not on the defendants. Plaintiff had the right, under its contract with Ball and Boatright, to take possession of the machinery in the event of their default. “It is not legal duress to threaten or actually to take advantage of the usual remedy by suit for the enforcement of a debt or obligation. . . . Standing upon one’s legal rights for the protection thereof cannot be recognized as coercion, intimidation or undue influence of any other person.” (6 Cal. Jur. 67.)