Miller v. Hair

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Miller v. Hair

1916 OK 13, 154 P. 1002, 55 Okla. 495, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 179

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 11, 1916

Docket6348

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1916 OK 13 (Miller v. Hair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Hair, 1916 OK 13, 154 P. 1002, 55 Okla. 495, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 179 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

DEVEREUX, C.

(after stating the facts as above). The governing question in this case is whether the defendants in error are bound by the action of the county in paying the plaintiff in error more than $75 per month for his services as superintendent.

It appears from the findings of the court that the county did pay more than $75, and that, although the defendants limited the county to $75 per month, yet the plaintiff had no knowledge or notice of this agreement, and that the defendants received the benefit of his services, while he was acting under the belief that he was to be paid at the rate of $5 per day. By the contract with the county, authorizing them to hire a superintendent to be paid out of the money agreed to be paid by the county to the architects, the defendants constituted the county its ’ agent to hire the plaintiff, and as his compensation was left blank in the *498 contract on file with the county, and the only one to which the plaintiff had access, there was nothing to put him on notice that any specified sum had been agreed to as his pay. Under the facts of this case it was the duty of the defendants to have ascertained what compenastion the county had agreed to pay the plaintiff, and having failed to do so, and plaintiff having performed his part of the agreement, they cannot now complain. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Shirk, 20 Okla. 576, 95 Pac. 218; Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Sutton, 30 Okla. 448, 120 Pac. 1007; First State Bank of Keota v. Bridges, 30 Okla. 355, 135 Pac. 378; C., R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Newburn, 39 Okla. 704, 136 Pac. 174; J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Lyons & Co., 40 Okla. 356, 138 Pac. 167. The compensation of the plaintiff being left blank in the contract, and no agreed sum fixed by the county, he is entitled to recover the reasonable value of his services.

We therefore recommend that the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

DEVEREUX, C.

(after stating the facts as above). The governing question in this case is whether the defendants in error are bound by the action of the county in paying the plaintiff in error more than $75 per month for his services as superintendent.

It appears from the findings of the court that the county did pay more than $75, and that, although the defendants limited the county to $75 per month, yet the plaintiff had no knowledge or notice of this agreement, and that the defendants received the benefit of his services, while he was acting under the belief that he was to be paid at the rate of $5 per day. By the contract with the county, authorizing them to hire a superintendent to be paid out of the money agreed to be paid by the county to the architects, the defendants constituted the county its ’ agent to hire the plaintiff, and as his compensation was left blank in the *498 contract on file with the county, and the only one to which the plaintiff had access, there was nothing to put him on notice that any specified sum had been agreed to as his pay. Under the facts of this case it was the duty of the defendants to have ascertained what compenastion the county had agreed to pay the plaintiff, and having failed to do so, and plaintiff having performed his part of the agreement, they cannot now complain. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Shirk, 20 Okla. 576, 95 Pac. 218; Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Sutton, 30 Okla. 448, 120 Pac. 1007; First State Bank of Keota v. Bridges, 30 Okla. 355, 135 Pac. 378; C., R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Newburn, 39 Okla. 704, 136 Pac. 174; J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Lyons & Co., 40 Okla. 356, 138 Pac. 167. The compensation of the plaintiff being left blank in the contract, and no agreed sum fixed by the county, he is entitled to recover the reasonable value of his services.

We therefore recommend that the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 13, 154 P. 1002, 55 Okla. 495, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-hair-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack