Douglass v. Treat

Decision Date28 October 1910
Citation246 Ill. 593,92 N.E. 976
PartiesDOUGLASS v. TREAT et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; A. M. Rose, Judge.

Bill by Jennie Douglass against M. C. Treat and others. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

L. B. Denning and Kagy & Vandervort, for appellants.

William F. Bundy and Noleman & Smith, for appellee.

VICKERS, J.

Mrs. Jennie Douglass filed a bill in the circuit court of Marion county against M. C. and E. M. Treat and George W. Crawford, doing business as partners under the name of Treat & Crawford, for the rescission of an oil and gas lease, on the ground that she was induced to execute said lease through the fraud and false representations of the defendants. Upon a hearing in open court upon the bill, answer, and proofs, the issues were found for complainant, and a decree was entered canceling the lease as a cloud upon complainant's title. The lease being for the term of two years from the date thereof, and ‘as long thereafter as oil or gas, or either or them, is produced’ by the lessee, a freehold is involved, and defendants below have appealed direct to this court. The only error seriously insisted upon is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the decree below.

The lease in question was executed by the appellee on July 19, 1909, in the city of Evanston, in the state of Wyoming. Appellee owns 50 acres of land on the north side of the village of Sandoval, Marion county, Ill., 20 acres of which is within the corporate limits of the village, and 30 acres adjoins the city limits on the north. Prior to June, 1908, appellee and her husband resided in Sandoval. Her husband died there some time in the spring or early summer of that year. On June 26, 1908, appellee left Sandoval and went to reside with her sister and brother-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Zipf, in Evanston, Wyo. Appellee remained with her sister in Wyoming until the lease in question was executed, July 19, 1909. During the summer and fall of 1908 attention was attracted to the vicinity of Sandoval as a prospective oil field. Some wells were put down, the first of which that showed any signs of oil being known as the ‘Dykstra well,’ which struck oil sand in September, 1908. This well did not, however, prove to be profitable. Later another well, known as the ‘Stein well,’ was put down to a depth of 1,400 feet and struck oil sand that was considered by oil men to contain oil in paying quantity. The oil sand found at the 1,400-foot level is referred to as the ‘Stein sand.’ After this strike a great many persons interested in oil came to Sandoval, and the excitement resulting from the showing in the Stein well caused some activity in procuring oil leases, for which, in some instances, substantial bonuses were paid, in addition to giving the landowner a royalty of one-eighth or one-sixth of the oil that might be produced from his land. Subsequently other wells were put down, which proved to be ‘dusters' or dry holes. The little flurry of excitement resulting from the showing in the Stein well gradually passed away, and most of the oil men abandoned the field.

Among those who remained and continued to prospect the filed was the Southwestern Oil & Gas Company, which had a lease on 150 acres of land belonging to A. E. Benoist, about one mile north of Sandoval. The Southwestern Oil & Gas Company sunk a well on the Benoist land during the spring and summer of 1909. At about the 1,400-foot level the Stein sand was found in the Benoist well. Not being satisfied, the Southwestern Oil & Gas Company decided to sink the well deeper. It went through the Stein sand, and at a depth of 1,530 feet found an oil sand, which is referred to in the record as the ‘Benoist sand,’ which was unusually rich in oil. This strike was made some time in the early part of July, 1909. The well gave every indication of being a great producer before it was shot, which occurred about 6 o'clock in the evening of July 14, 1909. After the Benoist well was shot, oil in great quantities was thrown out at the top of the hole, and it has continued to be a profitable gusher since. Reports of the Benoist strike spread rapidly, and the oil men who had abandoned the field immediately returned. Up to the time of the trial of this case the output of the Benoist well had not been accurately determined, but from the evidence of oil experts it is probably between 500 and 700 barrels every 24 hours. This quantity of oil flows out at the top without the aid of pumps.

Appellants were represented in this field by Mr. Whiting. Up to the time the Benoist well was shot they had confined their operations merely to securing leases, whether for speculative purposes or for development does not appear, nor is it material. A. E. Benoist is the father of A. L. Benoist, a young man 25 years of age, who resided with his father at the time the well was put down on the Benoist farm. A. E. Benoist was cultivating a portion of appellee's land, which lay south of his farm. A day or two before the Benoist well was shot, but after the oil sand had been found, Mr. Whiting, agent of appellants, spoke to young Benoist about engaging him to make a trip to Wyoming to procure a lease from appellee upon her 50 acres of land. No definite arrangements were made, however, until on the evening of July 14th, after the well had been shot. About 8:30 or 9 o'clock on that evening Mr. Whiting sent for young Benoist to come to his hotel in Centralia. Mr. Benoist drove over to Centralia and saw Mr. Whiting in his room in the hotel. Here Mr. Whiting arranged with young Benoist to leave on the first train for Evanston, and furnished him with money to pay his expenses and with blank leases, and authorized him to go to Evanston and offer the appellee a bonus of $500 for an oil lease and one-eighth of the oil, and $50 for gas that might be found under her land. A. L. Benoist left Sandoval the next morning at 5:14 o'clock, and arrived in Evanston on Sunday, July 18th, about 3 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Benoist called on appellee at her sister's home early Sunday morning. He spent most of the day visiting at the Zipf home, but did not attempt to transact any business; nor did he make it known that he was there for the purpose of securinga lease of appellee's land. About the time he was leaving on Sunday afternoon, he said to appellee that he had a little proposition to submit to her from some oil men, but would not discuss it at that time because it was Sunday, but promised to return on Monday and talk the matter over. On...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Seimer v. James Dickinson Farm Mortgage Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois
    • April 17, 1924
    ... ... Lasman v. Calhoun, 111 Wash. 467, 191 P. 409 ... (irrigation); Hughes v. Lockington, 221 Ill. 571, 77 ... N.E. 1105 (price); Douglass v. Treat, 246 Ill. 593, ... 92 N.E. 976 (prices); Leonard v. Springer, 197 Ill ... 532, 64 N.E. 299 (consideration). Representations as to ... ...
  • Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 31, 1979
    ...breach of a confidential relation, Swiney v. Womack, 343 Ill. 278, 175 N.E. 419 (1931); or through misrepresentation, Douglass v. Treat, 246 Ill. 593, 92 N.E. 976 (1910); rescission, as a remedy, is available through an action in equity. When this remedy is sought, it is to declare an agree......
  • Hush v. Reaugh
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois
    • June 7, 1938
    ...on a farm adjoining the piece of land, the concealment taken in connection with the mistake of fact, avoids the lease. Douglass v. Treat, 246 Ill. 593, 92 N.E. 976. In Turner v. Harvey, 1821, Jacob, 169, 37 Eng.Reprint 814, Lord Eldon observed: "Where parties deal for an estate they may put......
  • Noll v. Peterson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1930
    ...amounts were being paid as bonuses for oil leases in the vicinity of the injured party's land, this court said in Douglass v. Treat, 246 Ill. 593, 92 N. E. 976, 978: ‘The representation as to what bonuses were being paid in the neighborhood of appellee's land was a representation of a matte......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT