KAWFIELD OIL CO. v. BRAYMER DRILLING CO.

KAWFIELD OIL CO. v. BRAYMER DRILLING CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. March 26, 1923.) No. 6130. Appeal and error <®=ol033(&) — Error assigned held not prejudicial. Where plaintiff recovered less than the amount sued for, an assignment of error, based on the • contention that under the proof he should have recovered the full amount or nothing, alleges no error prejudicial to defendant. , ©=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes In Error to the District 'Court of the United States for the District of Kansas; John C. Pollock, Judge. Action at law by the Braymer Drilling Company against the Kawfield Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiff,, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. Hal F.Rambo, of_ Tulsa, Okl. (Edmund Eashley, of -Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiff in error. Walter U McVey and W.' N. Banks, both of Independence, Kan. (O. L. O’Brien, of Independence, Kan., on the brief), for defendant in error. Before LEWIS, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER and BOOTH, District Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] 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.