Hardy v. Ladow

• Decision Date: 11 November 1905
• Docket Number: 14,198
• Citation: Hardy v. Ladow, 72 Kan. 174, 83 P. 401 (Kan. 1905)
• Parties: JAMES F. HARDY et ux. v. B. E. LADOW et al
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

83 P. 401

72 Kan. 174

JAMES F. HARDY et ux. v. B. E. LADOW et al

No. 14,198

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 11, 1905

Decided.July, 1905.

Error from Wilson district court; LEANDER STILL-WELL, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1.PRACTICE, DISTRICT COURT--Prayer for Relief--Judgment.The demand of the plaintiff in his petition does not necessarily limit the court in the judgment which it may render.It is the case made by the pleadings and the facts proved, and not the prayer of the pleader, which measure the relief that the court may award.

2.CONTRACTS--Lease--Mistake--Reformation.A plaintiff alleged that the terms of a lease were agreed upon, but that advantage was taken of his infirmities and he was procured to sign a lease that did not conform to the agreement of the parties.He prayed for a cancelation of the lease, and there was also a prayer for general relief.Upon the testimony the court found that no fraud was intended, and that the nonconformity of the lease with the agreement was the result of an innocent mistake.Held, that it was within the power of the court to reform the lease and make it conform to the understanding and agreement of the parties.

Mikesell & Wilson, and P. C. Young, for plaintiffs in error.

S. S Kirkpatrick, for defendants in error.

JOHNSTON C. J.All the justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.

The controversy in this case is whether a written lease conforms to the agreement of the parties.After considerable negotiation James F. Hardy and his wife signed an oil-and-gas lease to the Kansas Pipe-line and Refining Company.It was written by an agent of the company, examined by an agent of the Hardys, and read aloud in their presence before it was signed; but it is claimed that it was not correctly read, and that provisions which it was supposed to contain were fraudulently omitted.It was alleged that Mrs. Hardy was blind, and that Mr. Hardy's vision was greatly impaired; that the lease was executed in the night-time; that because of their infirmities the Hardys had to depend upon others to ascertain the contents of the prepared lease; and that the agent of the company conspired with their agent to procure the signing of a lease which differed materially from the agreement arrived at and from that which the lease was supposed to incorporate.They therefore brought this suit against B. E. LaDow, to whom the lease had been assigned, and who had purchased it for the Fredonia Gas Company, which was also made a partydefendant; and in their petition they asked for a cancelation of the lease, "and for such other and further relief as to the court might seem just and proper."

The answer of the defendants denied that the lease was incorrectly written or wrongfully obtained; alleged that it had been read aloud before it was signed, and that a copy which was compared with the original was left with the Hardys and had been in their possession ever since its execution; that the defendants had purchased the lease and expended large sums of money in laying pipes and mains across the lands of plaintiffs for the purpose of conveying the gas from the wells to be drilled on and near the premises of the plaintiffs; that this was done with full knowledge on the part of the Hardys of the assignment of the lease; and that they made no objection thereto and gave no intimation that the lease was wrongfully obtained until about the time the suit was brought.It was alleged that the assignment of the lease was taken and $ 600 paid therefor by the defendants upon the belief that it was a valid instrument, and without knowledge that there had been any wrongs or defects in its execution, and they averred that it would be inequitable and unjust to permit the plaintiff now to assert that the lease was void and of no value.

The circumstances of the transaction were fully presented to the court at the trial, and its opinion as expressed in the record was that "no wilful fraud or wrong had been perpetrated on the plaintiffs in the matter of the execution of the lease in controversy, but that any deviation in the terms of the written lease from the actual contract between the parties thereto occurred simply by reason of an innocent mistake or misapprehension."The court further found that when the defendants acquired the lease they had no notice of any defects in its execution, or of any equities in favor of the plaintiffs; that, while plaintiffs were entitled to relief, it would be unjust to decree a cancelation of the instrument; that in equity and in justice to all the parties the lease should be reformed so as to conform to the agreement and understanding of the parties at the time of its execution.Judgment was accordingly given.

The first and principal complaint is that the court exceeded its authority in reforming the lease, when the only relief sought was its cancelation.It is insisted that the...