Hogan v. Richardson
Decision Date | 08 December 1924 |
Docket Number | 38 |
Parties | HOGAN v. RICHARDSON |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ouachita Chancery Court, Second Division; George M LeCroy, Chancellor; affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Charles Richardson and Harriet Richardson, his wife, brought this suit in equity against C. B. Hogan and W. H. Strong to cancel a written option contract executed by the plaintiffs to the defendants, on the ground that they had withdrawn their offer before it was accepted by the defendants.
The defendants admitted that the instrument, which is the basis of this suit, was in law an option to purchase the oil, gas and other minerals therein described at the price of $ 6,000 but aver that the contract is a valid and binding one because it is based on a valid consideration, and asked for specific performance of the same.
The instrument upon which the suit is based is as follows:
The instrument was duly acknowledged and filed for record.
As Frank Staples, the agent of Hogan and Strong, was leaving, Charles Richardson stated that he wanted the receipt to show that, unless Hogan and Strong exercised the option and took the property, he would get his royalty back. Staples then executed to him the following:
According to the testimony of Charles Richardson, the company was drilling a well on his land at the time he signed the option contract, and the well was down about 1,700 feet. About five days after the option was executed Charles Richardson went to El Dorado to get the $ 6,000 which he understood was to be deposited in a bank to his credit by that time. He found that Hogan and Strong had not exercised their right to purchase under the option contract; but that they had filed it for record. On the 20th day of July, 1922, the plaintiffs brought this suit as above stated to cancel said option contract as a cloud upon their title. The evidence shows that the option was worth $ 3,000.
Other facts appear in the record, but, inasmuch as they have no bearing on the issues raised by the appeal, we do not deem it necessary to state them.
After hearing the evidence the chancellor was of the opinion that the prayer of the plaintiff's complaint should be granted, and that the prayer of the defendants' cross-complaint should be dismissed for want of equity.
From a decree entered of record in accordance with the finding of the chancellor, the defendants have duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.
Decree affirmed.
Powell, Smead & Knox, for appellants.
1. One who signs a contract after opportunity to examine it cannot be heard to say that, when he signed it, he did not know what it contained. 71 Ark. 185; 78 Ark. 177; 105 Ark. 37; 110 Ark. 632; 119 Ark. 553. Even though ignorant, he is bound under the law to know the contents of the paper signed by him. 109 Ark. 537. The evidence does not support the contention of appellees that it was agreed that they would be paid the six thousand dollars in three days; but such evidence was not competent, since its effect was to vary the terms of the written contract. 142 Ark. 234; 150 Ark. 428; 140 Ark. 384; 10 R. C. L., §§ 208, 209; 203 Mass. 122, 89 N.E. 189.
2. Appellees cannot seriously urge, on appeal, the want of mutuality in the contract. That is the distinguishing element of an option contract, which the contract involved here is. 27 R. C. L., par. 31, Options.
3. Appellees contend that, because no definite time was fixed in which appellants must exercise their option, the contract is not enforceable. It is clear that the parties contemplated that each should have a reasonable time in which to perform their respective obligations, but, if no time was fixed in the contract, the law would imply a reasonable time. 150 F. 85; 48 S.W. 1106; 75 N.E. 482; 51 N.E. 614; 64 So. 51; 73 A. 694; 155 P. 460; 103 N.E. 939; 120 S.W. 100; 152 N.Y. 491; 86 S.E. 583; 73 S.E. 253; 14 S.E. 249; 64 A. 938. Until appellees tendered performance on their part, they could not insist that appellant did not act within a reasonable time. 108 N.Y. 168; 72 N.E. 947.
4. As to whether or not a nominal consideration of one dollar is sufficient to support an option contract, it appears that this court has not passed directly on that point. True, in Jones v. Lewis, 89 Ark. 368, the court seems to hold that it is not a good and valid consideration, but, in that case, no consideration was paid at all. The great weight of authority in this country is contrary to that holding, and upholds the nominal one-dollar consideration as sufficient to support the contract, especially if under seal. R. C. L. 27, Vendor and Purchaser; 70 So. 680; 97 P. 163; 82 N.E. 645; 129 N.W. 425; 103 Va. 230; 48 S.E. 891; 51 N.E. 580; 27 F. 828; 168 N.W. 486; 97 S.E. 654; 186 P. 437; 100 S.E. 644; 178 N.W. 696; 181 N.W. 945.
T. J. Gaughan, J. T. Sifford, J. E. Gaughan and Elbert Godwin, for appellees.
1. The contract lacks consideration, and therefore cannot be enforced. Whatever the rule of law in other States, it is settled in this State that courts of equity will not enforce voluntary contracts, nor validate voluntary conveyances by reformation. 15 Ark. 519; 80 Ark. 458; 44 Ark. 182; 127 Ark. 54; 152 Ark. 387.
2. Treating the contract as an option, appellee was clearly within his rights in withdrawing from the option before its acceptance, the consideration therefor being merely nominal. 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 403 and case note; 21 L. R. A. (O. S.) 127; 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 195; 86 S.W. 558; 121 F. 674.
3. Equity will not enforce an unconscionable contract. 6 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. par. 785.
4. No time limit having been fixed in the option for its acceptance, it was subject to being withdrawn by the optioner at any time. 121 F. 678; 21 L. R. A. (O. S.) 129, note; 31 Minn. 512; 56 Ill. 204; 96 N.Y. 565; 5 N.Y.S. 866; 87 Ky. 91.
OPINIONHART, J., (after stating the facts).
The parties to this suit concede that the written instrument copied in our statement of facts, which is the basis of this lawsuit. is an option contract, within the rule laid down in Indiana & Arkansas Lbr. & Mfg. Co. v. Pharr, 82 Ark. 573, 102 S.W. 686, and we shall so treat it.
The consideration recited in the option contract was one dollar and the defendants did not complete the contract by the payment of the $ 6,000 recited in it before the plaintiffs withdrew their offer. There is some conflict in the authorities as to whether or not there must be a valuable consideration...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Connor v. Patton
... ... the right to withdraw it within a reasonable time after ... Patton had been given notice and an opportunity to exercise ... the same. See Hogan v. Richardson, 166 Ark ... 381, 266 S.W. 299; 6 R. C. L. 603, § 25, and cases ... ... ...
-
Silbernagel v. Hirsch Distilling Co., 11095.
... ... v. Kopmeier Motor Car Co., 7 Cir., 194 F. 324, cited with approval in Weil v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 138 Ark. 534, 547, 212 S.W. 313; see Hogan v. Richardson, 166 Ark. 381, 266 S.W. 299; and that the contract, if such there was at all (Somers v. Musolf, 86 Ark. 97, 109 S.W. 1173, 1175; ... ...
-
Gladish v. Drainage Dist. No. 17 of Mississippi County
... ... --------------- ... 1 Appellants cite and strongly rely on Hogan v. Richardson, 166 Ark. 381, 266 S.W. 299, as holding that an option instrument was a unilateral offer when the consideration for the option was only ... ...
-
Russell v. Hill
... ... option could not be cancelled by the unilateral action of the Hills, as here attempted; and to sustain them the appellants cite such cases as Hogan v. Richardson, 166 Ark. 381, 266 S.W. 299; and Kelly v. Keith, 77 Ark. 31, 90 S.W. 150 ... The Chancery decree was in favor of the ... ...