Jackson v. Central Commercial Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1947 |
| Docket Number | 32706. |
| Citation | 184 P.2d 974,199 Okla. 177,1947 OK 257 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. CENTRAL COMMERCIAL OIL CO. et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Major County; O. C. Wybrant, Judge.
Action to cancel mineral deed, and for other relief by Pearl Jackson against Central Commercial Oil Company, a corporation, and others. The defendants filed cross-petitions. From a judgment for the defendants, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In this jurisdiction, where fraud is alleged in the procuring of a written instrument, the proof must sustain the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence so great as to overcome all opposing evidence and repel all opposing presumptions of good faith.
2. Where wife and husband join in a deed conveying a mineral interest in the homestead, and the husband's signature thereto is written by the wife with his knowledge and consent, and he acknowledges the execution of the deed before a notary public, he thereby adopts the signature as his own.
3. Record examined, and held, that the finding of the trial court that fraud in the procuring of a mineral deed was not proven, and a finding that the notary public taking the acknowledgment of the grantors thereto was not interested in the transaction, are not clearly against the weight of the evidence.
Winfield Scott and Page Belcher, both of Enid, for plaintiff in error.
John Butler, of Fairview, and W. F. Schuermeyer, of Tulsa, for defendant in error, Central Commercial Oil Co. and Central Commercial Co.
G. Earl Shaffer, of Tulsa, for defendant in error, Major Royalty Corporation.
Joy G Clayton, of Tulsa, for defendant in error, William H Meissner.
This action was brought by the plaintiff Pearl Jackson, on August 18, 1945, to cancel a mineral deed made by her and her husband on April 2, 1928, to Central Commercial Oil Company and deeds made by that company to the other defendants, and to quiet her title to the land involved. Defendants, by answers and cross petitions, asserted the validity of the various mineral deeds, and asked that title be quieted in them. The case being one of equitable cognizance was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
The original mineral deed executed by plaintiff and her husband conveyed an undivided one half of the minerals under 135 acres of land in Major County, for a consideration of $135 or $2 per acre. It was taken by a buyer named Wallace, who purchased mineral interests under a number of tracts in the vicinity for a similar consideration, for the purpose of resale. The name of the grantee was left blank, and a written instrument authorizing the insertion of the name of the grantee was executed at the same time. An oil and gas mining lease covering the land was also executed. Plaintiff's husband was almost blind, and did not sign the mineral deed, plaintiff signing his name thereto. Thereafter he deeded the land to plaintiff, and subsequently and in the year 1939, died.
Plaintiff first contends that the mineral deed was obtained by fraud and trickery, was a second degree forgery, and void under the rule announced in Wesley v. Diamond, 44 Okl. 484, 144 P. 1041; First National Bank of Watonga v. Wade, 27 Okl. 102, 111 P. 205, 35 L.R.A.,N.S., 775, and other cases so holding.
In support of this contention plaintiff and her son, who was 18 years of age when the deed was executed, testified that plaintiff's husband refused to sell Wallace any mineral interest, and that they understood that the papers executed were lease papers; that Wallace read the lease to them and did not read any royalty deed, and that plaintiff and her husband would not have signed a mineral deed if they had not been misled by Wallace. Plaintiff admitted that the signatures of herself and her husband on the mineral deed were written by her; that she had some education and could read and understand written instruments. She also admitted that as early as 1935 and about four years prior to the death of her husband, she knew of the existence of the mineral deed, but took no action to cancel it, giving as her reason therefor that no consideration had been paid for it, and she did not believe it would hold. She filed this action after the drilling of a producing well in the vicinity had greatly increased the value of the mineral interests.
The notary public who took the acknowledgment of plaintiff and her husband was produced as a witness by defendants. He testified that Wallace employed him to furnish an automobile and take acknowledgments for a stated compensation per day that Wallace was buying mineral interests, paying therefor a standard price of $2 per acre; that he had made other purchases in the vicinity at that price, and that the deal made by Wallace with plaintiff and her husband followed the same pattern; that plaintiff read the mineral deed to her husband, and signed both her name and her husband's, and that both she and her husband acknowledged the signatures to him. He testified that Wallace also took oil and gas leases from the persons who sold royalty to him, but that no consideration was paid for the leases, which were taken in the hope that some one would take...
To continue reading
Request your trial