Opinion
No. 42685.
October 23, 1934.
CONTRACTS: Requisites and Validity — Consideration — Jury Question. Evidence held to present a jury question on the issue of consideration.
Appeal from Warren District Court. — NORMAN R. HAYS, Judge.
The plaintiff brought his action upon an alleged oral contract entered into between him and defendant, in November, 1930. It is averred that the plaintiff was engaged at that time, and had been so engaged, for many years, in the business of prospecting for coal and in drilling holes therefor; that the defendant was contemplating the purchase of a certain tract of land, known as the Hardin land; that some years previously this plaintiff had prospected on such land and had drilled sixteen holes thereon for a total footage of 1,109 feet; that the plaintiff agreed to deliver to the defendant his drilling logs and records of the sixteen drilled holes in consideration of which the defendant agreed to pay him 50 cents a foot for the total footage in the event that the defendant should buy the Hardin land; that the defendant did buy the Hardin land and the plaintiff delivered to him copies of his drilling records for the sixteen holes thereon; that there is due plaintiff the sum of $554 as the agreed purchase price. The defense is a general denial. Defendant concedes in his evidence, however, that there was some conversation between him and the plaintiff concerning payment for the drilling records of said holes, but that it amounted to a mere promise of a gratuity and was void as such. At the close of the evidence, the court sustained the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff appeals. — Reversed and remanded.
Robert D. Jackson, for appellant.
Watson Watson, for appellee.
In view of our conclusion that the judgment must be reversed and remanded for another trial, we refrain from discussing the evidence. We think that the evidence introduced made a case for the jury. The contract, being oral, lacked formality. But the fair inference might be drawn from the conversation that the drilling records had substantial value for the defendant when he became owner of the land. He himself was a prospector and engaged in the development of mines and became so engaged upon the Hardin land. We do not think it can be said conclusively that defendant promised a mere gratuity as distinguished from a consideration.
The judgment below is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded to the district court. — Reversed and remanded.
MITCHELL, C.J., and KINDIG, ALBERT, and DONEGAN, JJ., concur.