Giarratana v. Naddy

• Decision Date: 31 May 1955
• Docket Number: No. 9375,9375
• Citation: 284 P.2d 254,129 Mont. 154
• Parties: Calcedonio GIARRATANA and Mabel Giarratana, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Martin T. NADDY, a single man, K. Hunter and E. J. Kinzler, co-partners, d/b/a Ohio Oil Syndicate, a co-partnership, J. F. Miskimen and Helen Miskimen, his wife, etc., Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 254

284 P.2d 254

129 Mont. 154

Calcedonio GIARRATANA and Mabel Giarratana, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Martin T. NADDY, a single man, K. Hunter and E. J. Kinzler co-partners, d/b/a Ohio Oil Syndicate, a co-partnership, J. F. Miskimen and Helen Miskimen, his wife, etc Defendants and Appellants.

No. 9375.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted March 11, 1955.

Decided May 31, 1955.

H. B. Landoe, Bozeman, for appellants.

Milton G. Anderson, Sidney, D. C. Warren, Glendive, Milton G. Anderson, argued orally, for respondents.

ANGSTMAN, Justice.

Plaintiffs brought this action to quiet title to certain described real estate situated in Dawson County, comprising 2,880 acres. The defendants filed an answer in which they admit the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in question, but allege that they gave to the Ohio Oil Syndicate, one of the defendants named, a certain oil and gas lease, which was duly recorded. They allege that the Ohio Oil Syndicate is a co-partnership consisting of defendants K. Hunter and E. J. Kinzler as co-partners. The answer denies that the defendants Naddy and J. F. Miskimen and his wife, Helen Miskimen, have any claim or interest in or to the property, and hence hereafter when referring to defendants we will be referring to all defendants save the Miskimens and Naddy. The answer alleges that the defendants have complied with the terms, conditions and covenants of the oil and gas lease, including the payment or tender of payment of oil delay rentals. Their prayer is that judgment be entered that the oil and gas lease be declared to be a valid, binding lease upon the lands described in the complaint.

The reply admits the execution of the lease but denies its validity. It admits that defendants Hunter and Kinzler are a co-partnership doing business under the name Ohio Oil Syndicate. It alleges that the lease in question was executed as a result of fraudulent representations to the effect that the defendants would drill a well on or before May 11, 1952; that the defendant co-partnership, through its agent Naddy, was given the form of a lease which plaintiffs desired to have executed, and that he without the consent of the plaintiffs caused the lease to be drafted entirely different in form and contents, and that plaintiffs, relying upon the representations and having faith and confidence in the agent, signed the lease relying upon the fraudulent representation that the lease would be in the form which was submitted to him, and that the plaintiffs were thereby deceived and damaged.

The reply further alleges that the lease was executed without any monetary consideration received by plaintiffs. It further alleges that the defendants failed to commence the drilling operations prior to May 11, 1952, or at all, and by reason of their failure so to do the lease became null and void and of no effect.

Their reply further alleges that the plaintiffs have refused to accept or receive any delay rental after May 11, 1952; that they notified Naddy as the agent of the other defendants that the oil and gas lease was terminated and void; that the same constitutes a cloud against the plaintiffs' title to the lands, which they desire to have removed from the records of Dawson County.

The cause was tried to the court without a jury. Judgment went in favor of the plaintiffs and defendants have appealed.

The court found that the association between the plaintiffs and the defendant Naddy built up a relationship whereby the plaintiffs placed implicit reliance and confidence upon him; that the oil and gas lease was executed under the following fraudulent representations:

First, that the lease was obtained by Naddy under the representation that oil drilling operations would be commenced on the land on or before May 11, 1952, and that this promise or agreement induced plaintiffs to sign the lease without the payment of any bonus money;

Second, that the defendant Naddy, as the agent for the other defendants, was given the form of lease as modified by plaintiffs and which plaintiffs desired to have executed, which provided for the drilling or the commencement of the drilling of an oil well on or before May 11, 1952, and for the forfeiture of the lease if a well were not commenced within that time; that the lease was to be drafted in accordance with the terms set forth in the lease form delivered to Mr. Naddy by plaintiffs; that without the consent of the plaintiffs and without their presence Mr. Naddy caused the lease to be drafted entirely different in form and contents and contrary to what the plaintiffs desired and demanded to have incorporated in the lease; that plaintiffs in reliance upon the faith and confidence of Naddy and his representations signed the lease; that the plaintiffs' signatures to the lease were procured because of Mr. Naddy's fraudulent representation that defendants would commence the drilling of a well on or before the 11th day of May 1952; that by virtue of this promise to commence the drilling operation plaintiffs agreed to waive any cash payment or any cash consideration for the execution and delivery of the lease; that the fraudulent representations made by Naddy were known by him to be false at the time they were made to the plaintiffs, and they were made for the purpose of deception and that they thereby procured the signatures of plaintiffs to the lease; that plaintiffs...