Thaddeus G. Benton and J. Lamar Butler v. Glenn McCarthy Glenn McCarthy Inc., and William McCarthy

Second Circuit

Thaddeus G. Benton and J. Lamar Butler v. Glenn McCarthy Glenn McCarthy Inc., and William McCarthy

276 F.2d 956, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4962

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1960

Docket25928_1

StatusPublished

This text of 276 F.2d 956 (Thaddeus G. Benton and J. Lamar Butler v. Glenn McCarthy Glenn McCarthy Inc., and William McCarthy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thaddeus G. Benton and J. Lamar Butler v. Glenn McCarthy Glenn McCarthy Inc., and William McCarthy, 276 F.2d 956, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4962 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Glenn McCarthy, the owner of an oil and gas concession in Bolivia, desired to obtain financing for the development of the concession through the sale of an undivided interest in the lease. Such an agreement was entered into by defendant corporation and Keljikan Commercial Corporation, which purchaser was obtained through plaintiffs’ efforts. The defendants, however, were unable to procure guarantees from the Mutual Securities Agency against expropriation of the lease or as to conversion of the profits from Bolivian to American currency, as was contemplated by the agreement. Hence the agreement was terminated without any payments being made by Keljikan.

Plaintiffs allege an oral commission contract under which they were to receive a 10 per cent “carried” interest in the enterprise, plus 5 per cent of the purchase price. Defendants’ position is that the commission promised was a reasonable percentage of the financing obtained, payable if and when such moneys were actually received. The district court, concluding that the “plaintiffs’ version of the transactions is not credible in the light of all the evidence and all of the facts and circumstances,” found for the defendants.

On this appeal, plaintiffs recite at some length the evidence adduced at the trial in an attempt to overturn the findings below. They have, however, succeeded only in demonstrating the conflicting nature of the testimony. Hence Judge Bryan’s findings of fact cannot be found “clearly erroneous,” F.R. 52(a); and we can find no reason to disturb his resolution of the conflict in favor of the defendants. The terms of the express contract found by the judge, conditioned upon the actual receipt of the financing payments by the defendant corporation, exclude any possibility of recovery in quantum meruit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Glenn McCarthy, the owner of an oil and gas concession in Bolivia, desired to obtain financing for the development of the concession through the sale of an undivided interest in the lease. Such an agreement was entered into by defendant corporation and Keljikan Commercial Corporation, which purchaser was obtained through plaintiffs’ efforts. The defendants, however, were unable to procure guarantees from the Mutual Securities Agency against expropriation of the lease or as to conversion of the profits from Bolivian to American currency, as was contemplated by the agreement. Hence the agreement was terminated without any payments being made by Keljikan.

Plaintiffs allege an oral commission contract under which they were to receive a 10 per cent “carried” interest in the enterprise, plus 5 per cent of the purchase price. Defendants’ position is that the commission promised was a reasonable percentage of the financing obtained, payable if and when such moneys were actually received. The district court, concluding that the “plaintiffs’ version of the transactions is not credible in the light of all the evidence and all of the facts and circumstances,” found for the defendants.

On this appeal, plaintiffs recite at some length the evidence adduced at the trial in an attempt to overturn the findings below. They have, however, succeeded only in demonstrating the conflicting nature of the testimony. Hence Judge Bryan’s findings of fact cannot be found “clearly erroneous,” F.R. 52(a); and we can find no reason to disturb his resolution of the conflict in favor of the defendants. The terms of the express contract found by the judge, conditioned upon the actual receipt of the financing payments by the defendant corporation, exclude any possibility of recovery in quantum meruit.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 F.2d 956, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thaddeus-g-benton-and-j-lamar-butler-v-glenn-mccarthy-glenn-mccarthy-ca2-1960.