Kawfield Oil Co. v. Braymer Drilling Co.

Eighth Circuit

Kawfield Oil Co. v. Braymer Drilling Co.

287 F. 713, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2383

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 1923

DocketNo. 6130

StatusPublished

This text of 287 F. 713 (Kawfield Oil Co. v. Braymer Drilling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kawfield Oil Co. v. Braymer Drilling Co., 287 F. 713, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2383 (8th Cir. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant in error (plaintiff below) drilled an oil well for plaintiff in error (defendant below), and the former sued the latter for the services rendered. The different kinds of work and the charges therefor were shown in the form of an account attached to the complaint, from which it appears that there was'a charge of $7,155 for drilling to a depth of 2,385 feet, at $3 per foot, a charge of $1,725 for plaintiff’s tools while drilling operations were shut down, at $25 per day, and a charge of $1,600 for fishing for the casing put in the well, which was damaged, at $100 per day, making a total of $10,480. Recovery of this amount, with interest, was asked, but the verdict and judgment were for $8,158.75.

The cause of action was in assumpsit on quantum meruit. The only error relied on in argument and brief is that the verdict of the jury and the judgment rendered were contrary to law. On that it is contended, that under the proof the plaintiff should have recovered the full amount sued for or nothing; hence the error. But, iDerror, it was not prejudicial to the defendant.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant in error (plaintiff below) drilled an oil well for plaintiff in error (defendant below), and the former sued the latter for the services rendered. The different kinds of work and the charges therefor were shown in the form of an account attached to the complaint, from which it appears that there was'a charge of $7,155 for drilling to a depth of 2,385 feet, at $3 per foot, a charge of $1,725 for plaintiff’s tools while drilling operations were shut down, at $25 per day, and a charge of $1,600 for fishing for the casing put in the well, which was damaged, at $100 per day, making a total of $10,480. Recovery of this amount, with interest, was asked, but the verdict and judgment were for $8,158.75.

The cause of action was in assumpsit on quantum meruit. The only error relied on in argument and brief is that the verdict of the jury and the judgment rendered were contrary to law. On that it is contended, that under the proof the plaintiff should have recovered the full amount sued for or nothing; hence the error. But, iDerror, it was not prejudicial to the defendant.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 F. 713, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kawfield-oil-co-v-braymer-drilling-co-ca8-1923.