Sully v. Kern Drilling Corp.

DORAN, J. The complaint herein contains three causes of action: (1) Specific performance of an oral agreement under which plaintiffs claimed a joint venture with defendants, by reason of which the latter were required to convey to each plaintiff a one-tenth interest in a certain 1 per cent royalty interest purchased by the Kern Drilling Corporation [652]from one Heller. Alternatively, and as respondents allege, “to avoid the defense of the Statute of Frauds,” the complaint alleged a constructive trust resulting from a breach of a confidential relationship, or a resulting trust. A second cause of action was in favor of plaintiff Rodman K. Cross for a debt due, with a third cause of action for Cross claiming the reasonable value of services rendered in evaluating the property involved herein.

The trial court decided the various issues in defendants’ favor except that plaintiff Cross was awarded judgment for $500 on the quantum meruit cause of action. The appeal is by all plaintiffs, Cross appealing by reason of the amount of the judgment rendered.

It is appellants’ contention that, “A. The findings are insufficient, uncertain, indefinite and ambiguous and not supported by the evidence because: 1. There is no finding of fact or conclusion of law on the issue of whether a joint venture existed, although definitely raised by the pleadings and evidence. 2. Yet there must have been some finding of a contractual relationship as evidenced by the award of $500.00. 3. There is no decision as to whether Donald Ford’s memorandum admitted in evidence would take the case out of the Statute of Frauds if no joint venture was found to exist. B. Errors occurred in the admission and exclusion of evidence. ’ ’

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondents, as required by law, it appears that appellant Cross, a geologist, in 1947 occupied an office in a Long Beach building owned by respondent Kern Drilling Corporation, and there became acquainted with respondent Edmund F. Richards. Cross testified that in May, 1951, Richards was informed by Cross that one A. H. Heller had for sale a 1 per cent overriding royalty interest in South Cuyama Field and that appellant Sully had telephoned Cross that this interest could be bought for $85,000. As stated in respondents’ brief, “Cross said that he told Richards that Sully wanted to buy one-tenth of the 1% royalty, and that he, Cross, would like one-tenth of it if he could afford it (R.T. 41).” Cross further testified that Richards wanted to know if the royalty was worth $85,000, and Cross told him that he would determine its value, but that he wanted to be compensated. At that time Cross “told him (Richards) that I did not think that I could afford to buy any of the percent at that time for the reason that I had other obligations.”