*1 125 (Italics The matter opinion says “it is should be reversed. main Although the mine.) fact did in Commission clear that the the and effect existing the services sider WORTHEN, J., argument heard the but upon and them operation have

new opinion before the died filed. public,” saying that Commis- upon the in no service similar sion “there applicant,” proposed

character record nothing pointed out

there is justify conclusion

by this decision to finding plaintiff since the the Commission’s P.2d 1019 authority contradiction, here, without ready, able perform and was this service George CHASE, Jr., A. Plaintiff Appellant, and willing do if such service so to and opinion’s requested. main state- MORGAN, Charitable Foun Nicholas G. Sr. doing or plaintiff has been ment as what dation, corporation, a Utah Defendant into doing only can mislead the reader Respondent. per- plaintiff authority to believing had no No. 8981. form the service. Supreme Court of Utah. opinion’s main final observa-

When the 1, 1959. June that “the added convenience tion is view public, justifying the Commission’s necessity ‘public convenience service,’ is ob-

quire the institution such lip

vious,” only payment it reflects principles claims various it

service espouse, ignores which does the evidence except necessity show convenience hardly way hearsay, proves it as- what it said when it have meant vehicle court could not be a this

serted stamping.” On “perfunctory rubber my opinion, contrary, the court perfunctory rubber has become

truth is con- particular case

stamp insofar as

cerned. Allen, Browning

Ben H. D. John City, appellant. Lake Salt .for Hansen, City, Wil- Elias Salt Lake Huntsman, Jordon, lard R. for re- West *2 spondent.

WADE, Justice. herein, appellant Chase, Jr.,

George A. the Nicholas against action commenced this Foundation, Morgan, G. Sr. Charitable spondent herein, services recover for to allegedly special its instance rendered at request leases. selling in certain oil appeal judg- a judgment This is an from ment of no cause action. jury a sitting

The trial court without appellant a fact that and his as- as selling signee rendered services in leases had by respondent held with the United States Oil Government to Sierra Com- Madre pany, respondent orally agreed and that had pay them the last to to three seven $13,826.54 payments per installment which month Sierra Madre Oil Com- pany pay agreed to had for the leases. The found that court further Nicholas G. Mor- subsequently gan, appellant wrote Sr. respondent, behalf of in letter on which of the oral there was confirmation under- appellant respondent standing between payments provided for the last three respondent between agreement Company paid Oil Madre should be Sierra concluded, directly appellant. court to sale, purchase, or however, recover rental appellant exchange, leasing attempts of or or offers or appellant neither nor because these amounts agrees to negotiate sale, exchange, license business assignor had a do to purchase, of, lists leasing rental or or Utah a real broker in or act as a estate to or attempts list, or agrees offers or or broker in Utah as salesman for a licensed auctions, attempts agrees or or offers or 61, U.C.A.19S3, required Chap. 2, Title collect rental for the use of real es- when rendered them. services were advertises, buys tate or who or who Appellant court contends the erred buy, offers to sells or offers to sell or recovery precluded from cluding he was options otherwise deals on real es- estate not obtained a real because he improvements tate or the thereon or estate (1) the real broker’s license because attempts who collects offers or or or apply who to one do not broker’s statutes agrees collect rental for the use owner; and merely buyer anto .introduces real estate who or advertises or holds in the (2) nor transactions himself, itself or out themselves as en- business; leases because oil (3) gaged in selling, the business of ex- find no merit are real We estate. changing, purchasing, renting leasing *3 any of contentions. these real estate or assists or directs in the 61-2-2, portions U.C.A. Sec. The of prospects of procuring negotia- or the and broker” “Real estate define which any or of closing tion transaction Real the “Real within the terms of estate” or which does is calculated to result in which are relevant Act Estate Brokers sale, exchange, leasing, renting the or herein read: any real of The term ‘real es- estate. any per- broker’ tate shall include also ‘Real estate broker’—‘Real “61-2-2. partnership, son, corpo- association or term estate’ defined.—The ‘real estate employed by ration or on behalf of meaning

broker’ this within of' par- owner or of lots owners or other chapter persons, part- include all shall salary real cels of estate or at a stated corporations, nerships, and associations upon upon salary commission a a or and domestic, who for foreign and another basis or commission otherwise to sell fee, commission or other and for a any parts real such estate or thereof in consideration, or who with valuable parcels or other who lots shall sell and expectation or in the or the intention exchange attempt agree offer or or or or receiving col- upon of or any negotiate exchange the sale or of fee, or other valu- commission lecting parcel lot such or of real estate. sells, consideration, exchanges, able ****** negotiates leases or or purchases, rents get that we could them or if we used estate’

“The term ‘real for compen- buyer they that would chapter and leaseholds include shall ours) (Emphasis us than leaseholds.” sate for it.” interests other less own appellant his testimony and of Appellant’s interrogatories own answer to they were in that disclosed witnesses respondent by submitted was effect to the and gas leases seeking of business acreage respondent that “advised us an of respondent buyers that for them and finding they sum agreed block to sell for the which at cer- sell its leases it would agreed had per acre, agreed pay us a of $4.00 be compensation price, and the tain said commission of whatever we could sell price. set of this procured in excess sum per for, said acreage excess of $4.00 discussed appellant buyer found and A * * (Emphasis acre ours) buyer respondent and the terms with both It clear from the above that evidence respond- buyer to introduced the and then appellant his associates were authorized appel- of the activities a result of ent. As negotiate leases in- sell or sale of the associates, respondent sold lant and contemplated agreement an volved. Such Ap- buyer procured them. leases finding than the or introduction more mere interroga- answer evidence pellant’s buyer clearly sort of ac- of a was the agreed to be the services showed tories tivity of embraced within the definition in- than a mere involved performed more quoted “Real estate broker” above. respondent and buyer to aof troduction be made a sale could contemplated that appel impressed areWe with instance, appel- one by appellant; lant’s second contention transactions associate of was an witnesses who lant’s involving come oil leases should not with contact first made appellant who provisions within the the Real Estate these to the sale regard spondent good appears There Brokers Act. no rea as follows: testified leases why negotiation son sale or sale of a an oil a broker of lease does they I them if asked “A. Well protection good not need the same for the they sale and or leases for any oil public negotiation the sale plat me then a or a gave yes and said *4 involving of other lease real estate. believe, I think there I plats, couple of bunches.” two was Appellant’s third contention that ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] oil and gas leases are not “real estate be they they ordinarily Yes, they years that said cause estates wanted “A. put price They under the law on them and common were classified sell. anything personal chattels real and time said that above considered that at

129 persuasive gas have might been construed and oil as “mineral” property1 have legislature Development This for the fact that the were it not Western case. of springs my the definition determination that saw fit include within belief from prin- here, the term “real other the legal estate” leaseholds and situation factual clearly ciples involved, statutory less than leaseholds. This interests and a reasonable legislature that compel indicates the intention construction the conclusion given plaintiff term coverage that a be unless the broad written authoriza- Act. purposes did, of this “real estate” for the tion to do what he the transaction Nell, Development Company In v. legislation. Western vulnerable to the 452, 112, held 4 288 this court Utah 2d P.2d conscience, good As to this case is dis- “min- in the term were included defendant, turbing. promised all, The after par- proof of that the erals” in absence plaintiff pay- should have the last three conveyance intend. ties to the did not so persists, ments. That though still part of the earth Undetached minerals are unenforceable sought since defendant matter realty.2 subject The therefore refuge legislation. sanctuary behind Such realty being of it the leases follows may legally justified by statute, be oil legislature intended that equitable attack, exclusion but there term within the leases should be included would seem to be little or no consolation Act. purposes “real estate” of this for the making promise only of a sacred with break it respondent. statute. Affirmed. Costs to only defendant promised McDONOUGH, CROCKETT, J.,C. plaintiff would the money, receive but he J., TUCKETT, Judge, and R. L. District promise when, reiterated in a letter to concur. plaintiff, the former said “This letter HENRIOD, (concurring). Justice * * * our verbal tinderstanding firms * * * concur, so remaining payments I since I the statute that the believe three type you.” broad include of transaction be direct Why as to made defendant here, price “per payments there acre” the three where was a received but turned two stipulated, years, for 5 McDonald, there was a “lease” of them over to president of long escrow, “so thereafter as oil Sierra Madre and to an to continue one explainable only particularly we seem produced,” since because the statute 1, Diet.1934; Dabney Edwards, 2. Bouv.Law 1. 5 Cal.2d 53 P.2d 36 Am.Jur. Mines Minerals, page 962, 8, & A.L.R.. 822 and 32 Am.Jur. Sec. 286. 16, ; page Tenant, Sec. Landlord Leases, pp. Gas Brown’s Law Oil and 32-33, Sec. 3.04. *5 which, he actions defendant’s his concede, the antithesis

must understanding. de- appear

It writer ear- plaintiff had the

fendant’s letter to substantiating assignment

marks of an Whether, understanding promise.

his McDonald, Sierra escrow and they effec- parties joined been as

Madre

tively statute could have asserted pres- defendant, problem

ent here. P.2d 1022 OSTERTAG,

Ludwig Plaintiff Respondent,

v. MONT, Defendant and LA

Duncan G. Appellant. MONT, by Marjorie minor, La

David LA litem, Mont, ad Plaintiff Guardian Appellant, OSTERTAG,

Ludwig Defendant and Respondent.

No. 8983.

Supreme Court of Utah. 28,

May 1959.