Title: POPPLEWELL v. GREGORY
Citation: 189 P.2d 941, 1947 OK 375, 199 Okla. 681
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: December 9, 1947

POPPLEWELL v. GREGORY Annotate this Case POPPLEWELL v. GREGORY 1947 OK 375 189 P.2d 941 199 Okla. 681 Case Number: 32859 Decided: 12/09/1947 Supreme Court of Oklahoma Syllabus ¶0 1. WORK AND LABOR - BROKERS - Essentials of implied contract to pay for services rendered another. In order to raise an implied contract to pay for services rendered another, it is necessary that the services be performed under such circumstances as to give the recipient thereof some reason to think they are not gratuitous, not performed for some other person, but with expectation of compensation from the recipient and the service must have been beneficial to the recipient. 2. APPEAL AND ERROR - Effect of general finding of court in jury-waived case. In a civil action triable to a jury, where jury is waived and the cause is tried to the court, the findings of the trial court have the force and effect of a jury verdict, and when the finding is a general one it is a finding of every specific thing necessary to be found sustaining the general judgment. 3. SAME - Sufficiency of evidence to support judgment in jury-waived case. In such case, as in the case of a jury verdict, the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the conclusion of the trial court. Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Clarence Mills, Judge. Action by Agnes M. Gregory, a broker, against Lelah Popplewell to recover judgment for commissions on sale of real estate. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. Eagin & Eagin, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error. Halley, Douglass & Felix and Raymond B. Everest, all of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error. GIBSON, J. ¶1 This action is to recover a commission on a sale of real property alleged to have been earned by Agnes M. Gregory, a real estate broker, plaintiff below. Trial was to the court with judgment for $1,750 against Lelah Popplewell, defendant, who appeals therefrom. ¶2 It is urged as error that there was no contract between the plaintiff and defendant touching the sale and hence no basis for liability. ¶3 That the right of recovery must be predicated on a contractual relation is beyond question, but such contract may be implied as well as expressed. And the question is whether the facts herein establish such a contract. ¶4 The essential elements of an implied contract in the situation that obtains herein are clearly defined in Segnitz v. A. Grossenbach Co., 158 Wis. 511, 149 N.W. 159 (see, also, Anno. 43 A. L. R. 842), as follows: "In order to raise an implied contract to pay for services several things are necessary . . . First, the services must have been performed under such circumstances as to give the recipient thereof some reason to think they are not gratuitous, not performed for some other person, but with the expectation of compensation from the recipient. . . . Second, in order to raise an implied contract to compensate for them, the services must have been beneficial to the person sought to be made liable." ¶5 It is not disputed there was a telephone conversation between plaintiff and defendant wherein the latter offered to sell the property for $35,000, and the former stated she was not in a position to buy but had a friend who was in position to do so and might buy; that the plaintiff then called the matter to the attention of Mrs. Killam who, in pursuance thereof, went to see the defendant, told her that she had come at the suggestion of plaintiff, looked over the property, agreed to purchase it at the price of $35,000, and the sale was made. ¶6 The plaintiff testified that when talking with defendant by telephone she inquired if the latter had apartments for rent, to which the latter replied she did not but that she did have apartments for sale. That plaintiff inquired the price and was told $35,000. That plaintiff then stated she was not in a position to buy but that she knew of one who was, and asked if the sale would carry a straight commission, to which defendant replied, "oh, yes." That plaintiff then got in touch with Mrs. Killam and thereafter informed defendant that she was sending Mrs. Killam to look at the property; and that within a few days after Mrs. Killam made the down payment on the purchase the defendant called on the plaintiff and declared "I came to pay you some money. You did not earn anything but I am willing to give you $250.00", which was refused by the plaintiff. ¶7 The defendant testified that in the telephone conversation nothing was said about commissions and that she told the plaintiff that the price, whether sale was to plaintiff or her friend, would be $35,000 net. The defendant gave no testimony concerning the subsequent conversation wherein the $250 offer is said to have been made. ¶8 Measured by the applicable rule, it is clear that the service was beneficial to the defendant. Whether or not the defendant had reason to believe same was not gratuitous nor performed for the benefit of another is dependent upon whether the testimony of the plaintiff or defendant accords with the fact. This question, which goes to the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given their testimony, is one within the province of the jury, and of the court where a jury is waived. In either case, there being no error of law, the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict or the conclusion of the trial court. Lowe v. Hickory, 176 Okla. 426 , 55 P.2d 769 . ¶9 The court found generally for the plaintiff. There is competent evidence to support the finding. ¶10 Judgment affirmed. ¶11 HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and BAYLESS, WELCH, CORN, ARNOLD, and LUTTRELL, JJ., concur.