Davis v. Walker

104 N.W.2d 479, 170 Neb. 891, 1960 Neb. LEXIS 121
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 29, 1960
Docket34704
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 104 N.W.2d 479 (Davis v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. Walker, 104 N.W.2d 479, 170 Neb. 891, 1960 Neb. LEXIS 121 (Neb. 1960).

Opinion

Chappell, J.

Plaintiff, Harry C. Davis, brought this action against defendants, James Keith Walker, Dennis H. Sexson, Rock H. Castellano, Michael E. Layon, W & M Oil Company, a Nebraska corporation, and Wyoming Oil Company, a Delaware corporation, seeking recovery under the provisions of sections 81-347 and 81-348, R. R. S. 1943, which became effective September 18, 1955, and are a part of an act known as the Blue-Sky Law.

Plaintiff’s amended petition alleged in substance that defendants, except Wyoming Oil Company which merged with W & M Oil Company on June 21, 1956, and thereby assumed all debts, liabilities, and duties of whatsoever kind or nature of W & M Oil Company, did sell, issue, exchange, and transfer to plaintiff in Nebraska certain Wyoming stocks, securities, and interests in five separate transactions, designated as 3-a to 3-e inclusive, in violation of sections 81-302 to 81-346, R. R. S. 1943, because defendants never did possess licenses and permits from the Department of Banking of this state authorizing them to do business as brokers or salesmen. Plaintiff also alleged that he never received any income or recovery from any such stocks, securities, and interests; that the total consideration paid by plaintiff to defendants therefor was $9,450; and that he complied with section 81-348, R. R. S. 1943, by depositing with the clerk of the district court for the use and benefit of defendants all such stocks, securities, and interests received by plaintiff from defendants. Plaintiff’s prayer was for a finding that the aforesaid allegations were true; that defendants were liable to plaintiff for $9,450 with interest from the respective • dates of the transactions; or for such sum as equity shall determine to be due.

Defendants Walker, W & M Oil Company, and Wy *894 oming Oil Company answered, denying generally but admitting merger of the two oil companies prior to the institution of this action as alleged, and alleging that plaintiff purchased a 2 percent working interest in an 80-acre drill site lease known as State of Wyoming B lease, but alleged that such transaction was negotiated at plaintiff’s special instance and request without solicitation by defendants. The last allegation is not supported by the evidence and is entirely immaterial in any event. Their prayer was for judgment in their favor and recovery of costs.

Defendant Castellano answered, denying generally and alleging that he never sold, issued, exchanged, or transferred to plaintiff any securities or interest therein in violation of the statutes as alleged; that he never expressly or impliedly authorized or appointed any person to act as broker or salesman or to negotiate for the issue, sale, exchange, or transfer of any securities within the State of Nebraska; that he had no notice or knowledge of the publication of any advertisement by defendant corporations; that he had not been a director of either corporation for more than 2 years before commencement of plaintiff’s action, which was barred by the statute of limitations; and that the statutes relied upon by plaintiff were unconstitutional in certain respects which were not presented or argued in said defendant’s brief. His prayer was for dismissal, recovery of costs, and equitable relief.

Defendant Layon answered, admitting the merger of defendant corporations as alleged, but denying generally and alleging in substance the same allegations as appear in Castellano’s answer. Layon also alleged that plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of section 83.-348, R. R. S. 1943, because he failed and refused to deposit with the clerk of the district court the securities described in transactions 3-a, 3-b, and 3-c of plaintiff’s petition. He further alleged that plaintiff, with the intent of securing financial gain, induced and assisted in *895 inducing persons to purchase securities not exempt under section 81-312, R. R. S. 1943, and did receive therefor financial gain without being first licensed as broker or salesman, as required by statute, therefore plaintiff was not entitled to seek relief in equity. In connection with the last allegation, we find no competent evidence in this record to sustain such contention. Defendant Layoffs prayer was for dismissal, recovery of costs, and equitable relief.

Plaintiff’s replies to each of the foregoing answers were general denials of allegations appearing in defendants’ answers, except such as admitted the allegations of plaintiff’s petition. Requests for admissions were served upon defendants and filed, together with answers thereto, and the cause was tried to the court whereat evidence was adduced and a judgment was rendered. The judgment found that service was had on all defendants except Dennis H. Sexson who is thus not primarily involved here; that between August 18, 1955, and March 21, 1956, plaintiff purchased certain securities from defendant, W & M Oil Company, now merged with Wyoming Oil Company, except only a promissory note dated March 21, 1956, for $1,500, representing a loan from plaintiff to W & M Oil Company, which was in default and for which Wyoming Oil Company was liable to plaintiff. The judgment found, however, that plaintiff’s right to recover consideration paid by him for the securities was based upon equitable rescission and that the authority prescribed in section 81-348, R. R. S. 1943, required restitution of the exact securities purchased. It then found that plaintiff had failed to make restitution of the securities described in his petition or deposit same with the clerk of the district court for the use and benefit of defendants. For such reason the court found the issues generally against plaintiff and in favor of defendants and each of them with respect to recovery of the consideration paid for such securities, except that plaintiff should have judg *896 ment against Wyoming Oil Company, successor to W & M Oil Company, upon the promissory note aforesaid, for $1,500 with interest at 5 percent from March 21, 1956, and costs of the action. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and plaintiff’s petition was dismissed as to defendants Walker, Castellano, and Layon, with recovery of costs’ by each such defendant from Wyoming Oil Company.

Plaintiff’s motions for new trial were overruled, and he appealed, assigning in substance and effect that the findings and judgment of the trial court were erroneous and contrary to the evidence and law, “except only as to the award of judgment on the promissory note.” We sustain the assignment to the extent and in the manner hereinafter set forth, after trial de novo under rules too well established to repeat.

Section 81-347, R. R. S. 1943, provides: “Any person, except a person who shall have obtained from the Department of Banking a permit to do business as a broker or salesman, who shall within the State of Nebraska sell, issue, exchange, or transfer any security or interest therein in violation of sections 81-302 to 81-346, shall be liable to the purchaser of the security for the value of the consideration paid by the purchaser less the amount of any income or recovery received thereon.” In that connection, it is proper to point out here that the record is conclusive that plaintiff did not ever receive “any income or recovery” from the securities involved.

The terms “security” or “securities” are defined by section 81-304, R. R. S.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hooper v. FREEDOM FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
784 N.W.2d 437 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2010)
Emery Waterhouse Co. v. Lea
467 A.2d 986 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1983)
State Ex Rel. Schuler v. Dunbar
302 N.W.2d 674 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1981)
Doyle v. Union Insurance
277 N.W.2d 36 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1979)
State v. Eagle Thunder
266 N.W.2d 755 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1978)
Egbert v. Wenzl
260 N.W.2d 480 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1977)
Fowler v. Elm Creek State Bank
254 N.W.2d 415 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1977)
Huryta v. White
165 N.W.2d 354 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1969)
Loewenstein v. MIDWESTERN INVESTMENT COMPANY
149 N.W.2d 512 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 N.W.2d 479, 170 Neb. 891, 1960 Neb. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-walker-neb-1960.