Minnehoma Oil Co. v. Florence
| Citation | 92 Okla. 17,1923 OK 550,217 P. 443 |
| Decision Date | 24 July 1923 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 11316 |
| Parties | MINNEHOMA OIL CO. et al. v. FLORENCE et ux. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Contracts -- Rescission -- Retention of Benefits.
In suits for the rescission and cancellation of contracts, the court applies the maxim that, he who seeks equity must do equity. The plaintiffs will not be permitted to repudiate their contract and still retain the benefits which they have derived from it, but will be required to restore to the defendants everything of value received by the plaintiffs by virtue of said contract.
2. Appeal and Error--Review of Equity Case--Insufficiency of Evidence.
In a case which is cognizable only in a court of chancery, it is the duty of the court to consider the whole record, to weigh the evidence, and, when the judgment of the trial court is clearly against the weight of the evidence, render, or cause to be rendered such judgment as the trial court should have rendered.
3. Same--Cancellation of Oil Lease for Fraud--Restoration of Consideration.
Record examined, and held, that plaintiffs should have been required, by the judgment of the trial court, to restore to the defendants the $ 900 the plaintiffs received by virtue of the lease they sought to cancel and rescind.
Commisioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.
Error from District Court, Stephens County; Cham. Jones, Judge.
Action by L. W. Florence and Estella Florence against the Minnehoma Oil Company, Loyal Petroleum Company, and Ralph Talley. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
C. H. Rosenstein, for plaintiffs in error.
H. B. Lockett, for defendants in error.
¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Stephens county by L. W. Florence and Estella Florence against the Minnehoma Oil Company, Loyal Petroleum Company, and Ralph Talley, to enjoin the recording of a certain oil and gas lease, and for a decree canceling said lease and barring the defendants from claiming any right, title, or privilege under said lease. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs, from which the defendants Loyal Petroleum Company and Ralph Talley have appealed.
¶2 The plaintiffs filed their petition alleging that they were the owners and in possession of the lands covered by the oil and gas lease in controversy, and that in April, 1919, the defendant Loyal Petroleum Company procured an oil and gas lease from the plaintiffs on said land through false and fraudulent representations that said defendant was blocking up an acreage in the vicinity of the plaintiffs' land with the intention of drilling for oil thereon, and represented to the plaintiffs that it was procuring leases from other land owners in that vicinity for a bonus of $ 15 per acre, and, relying upon these representations, the plaintiffs executed said oil and gas lease to this defendant; that as a matter of fact, said defendant was paying as high as $ 40 and $ 50 per acre for leases on other lands in that vicinity; and the plaintiffs prayed that defendant Ralph Talley, county clerk, be enjoined from recording said oil and gas lease and that said lease be canceled on account of the fraud practiced in procuring same. The plaintiffs tendered the $ 900 bonus received from the defendant Loyal Petroleum Company for said lease.
¶3 A separate answer was filed by the Loyal Petroleum Company, denying generally and specifically the allegations in the petition of the plaintiffs and alleging that the transaction in procuring said oil and gas lease was free from fraud and made in good faith. A separate answer was filed by Ralph Talley, defendant, and also by the Minnehoma Oil Company, defendant. The case was submitted to the court without a jury. The Court found and rendered judgment that the Minnehoma Oil Company had no interest in said lease and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs canceling said lease and enjoining the placing of the same of record.
¶4 The defendant Loyal Petroleum Company argues only one assignment of error, to wit: That the court erred in not rendering judgment for the said defendant against the plaintiffs for the $ 900 bonus paid to the plaintiffs for said lease.
¶5 The defendant concedes that the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment of the lower court in holding that said lease was procured by fraud and canceling same, and, therefore, there is but one question presented to this court, and that is whether the trial court erred in its failure and refusal to render judgment for the defendant Loyal Petroleum Company for the amount that plaintiffs. received for executing said lease.
¶6 Before the plaintiffs could rescind their contract, the lease in question, it was necessary for them to restore to the defendant Loyal Petroleum Company everything of value which they...
To continue reading
Request your trial