Enola Oil Co. v. Bogie
| Decision Date | 29 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 36837,36837 |
| Parties | ENOLA OIL COMPANY, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. S. BOGIE, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
When persons meet and negotiate concerning a contract and discuss its proposed terms and conditions, and finally end the matter by executing a written contract fully covering the subject, it represents the final agreement of the parties, and oral evidence tending to vary, contradict, enlarge, or narrow the terms of the writing is not admissible.
Appeal from Superior Court, Okmulgee County; Tom Payne, Judge.
Action by W. S. Bogie against Enola Oil Company, Inc., and defendant files cross- petition. From finding and judgment for plaintiff and dismissing cross-petition, the defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Charles E. Grounds, E. Keith Cooper, Seminole, for plaintiff in error.
Rainey & Barksdale, Okmulgee, for defendant in error.
W. S. Bogie filed petition against Enola Oil Company, a corporation, seeking specific performance.
The plaintiff alleged the defendant owned an undivided three-fourths interest in the seven-eighths working interest in certain oil and gas leases covering certain described land. That on January 22, 1954, the defendant and the plaintiff entered into an agreement in writing whereby the defendant agreed to sell its interest in certain oil and gas leases to the plaintiff and for which the plaintiff would pay to the defendant a certain sum of money; provided that all the bills now due are paid, and provided that the said defendant will be responsible for three-fourths of said bills, and that all bills are to be examined and audited by the said defendant.
The plaintiff alleged a timely performance of all conditions precedent on his part, as provided in the said written agreement, and a timely tneder, and that he continues a tender to the defendant of all sums of money mentioned in the agreement. That defendant, after due demand by the plaintiff, had refused and still refuses to execute and deliver the assignment as provided in the said written agreement. The plaintiff, pleading a tender into court, prayed judgment against the defendant; that the court direct and cause the assignment of the interest of defendant in said oil and gas leases to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's petition was filed on February 6, 1954.
On April 27, 1954, defendant filed a pleading styled 'Answer and Cross-petition.' Therein the defendant specifically admitted plaintiff's allegations as to the January 22, written agreement and therein defendant further alleged that on April 17, 1954, the parties orally modified their original agreement of January 22, 1954, and whereby the defendant agreed to and did sell to the plaintiff all the defendant's interest in the oil and gas leases involved for a certain cash consideration, and that the plaintiff would pay all the expenses incurred in equipping, developing and operating of said leases, from February 1, 1954, to April 17, 1954. That pursuant to said modified agreement the defendant did on April 17, 1954, execute a valid assignment to the said oil and gas leases to the plaintiff and received from the plaintiff a certain cash sum. That theretofore the defendant had paid three-fourths of all expenses in a certain amount and incurred in equipping, developing and operating said leases from February 1, 1954, to April 17, 1954, and that therefore the plaintiff had failed to pay or properly account to the defendant in the sum of $2,157.17, as provided by the said modified agreement. The defendant prayed judgment against the plaintiff in said amount.
The parties appeared and trial was had before the court on December 15, 1954. In January, 1954, the plaintiff was the owner of an undivided one-fourth, and the defendant was the owner of an undivided three-fourths of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bredouw v. Jones
...vary, contradict, enlarge, or narrow the terms of the writing is not admissible. Coker v. Hudspeth, Okl., 308 P.2d 291; Enola Oil Company v. Bogie, Okl., 290 P.2d 763. It is the position of the defendants that the contemporaneous oral agreement between the plaintiff and defendants was in th......
-
Oklahoma Co. v. O'Neil
...in the absence of fraud is this rule available to one asserting the validity of the written instrument. 15 O.S.1961, § 137; Enola Oil Co. v. Bogie, Okl., 290 P.2d 763; Clayton v. Paul, Okl., 292 P.2d 405; Dawson v. Sears, 188 Okl. 544, 110 P.2d 910. Since we have previously determined that ......
-
Oklahoma Co. v. O'Neil
...by the terms of an executed written agreement and its terms cannot be varied by parol testimony. 15 O.S.1951 § 137; Enola Oil Co., Inc. v. Bogie, Okl., 290 P.2d 763; Clayton v. Paul, Okl., 292 P.2d 405, and numerous other cases cited therein and announcing the same principle. This court has......