Noble v. Plouf
| Decision Date | 11 July 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23769 |
| Citation | 154 La. 429,97 So. 599 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | NOBLE v. PLOUF et al |
Rehearing Denied October 2, 1923
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; R. D Webb, Judge.
Consolidated suits by Charles F. Noble against Mrs. Mary J. Plouf and others, Mrs. Mary Agnew and others, and Mrs. Eva G. Powell and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
E. W. & P. N. Browne, of Shreveport, for appellant.
Thigpen, Herold & Lee and Thatcher & Smitherman, all of Shreveport, for appellees.
The issues of these three suits being identical, except as to the defendants and the land involved, they were consolidated for the purpose of trial and appeal. This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment maintaining an exception of no cause of action in each suit.
The petition in each case alleges that on or about October 7, 1917, Mrs. Addie C. Pitts, Mrs. Nettie O. Hampton, Mrs. Mary J. Plouf, Mrs. Eva G. Powell, and Mrs. Mary Agnew (the last three parties being represented by Mrs. Hampton as agent) executed in favor of Thomas Ward an oil lease on land in the parish of Caddo, and that plaintiff's title to said lease is derived through mesne conveyances from said Ward.
The petition sets out the terms of the lease, which is alleged to have been in writing and recorded, and which is made part of the petition, and alleges, in paragraph eight, an extension dated May 14, 1918, which is also averred to be in writing and recorded, and which is also made part of the petition.
The petition, after averring the consent of Mrs. Plouf, Mrs. Powell, and Mrs. Agnew to the original lease and extension, and their acquiesence therein and ratification thereof by acceptance of a portion of all amounts forming the cash consideration of said agreements, sets out that each of the said parties has executed another lease upon the property, under which the second lessee has drilled oil-producing wells, and plaintiff, accordingly, prayed for judgment annulling each second lease and to have his own lease recognized as a binding and subsisting obligation, with reservation of the right to sue for damages.
In response to a prayer for oyer, plaintiff filed in court copies of all the documents upon which his action is founded. These documents, forming part of plaintiff's demand, are controlling wherever they are at variance with the allegations of the petition, and their legal effect must be considered and determined in passing upon the exception of no cause of action.
It is shown by these exhibits that Mrs. Hampton had no authority whatever to execute in behalf of Mrs. Plouf, Mrs. Powell, or Mrs. Agnew the lease and extension to Ward. The powers of attorney under which she purported to act were express mandates to sell, and not to lease, the property owned by her principals. Mrs. Hampton, in executing the lease and extension, clearly exceeded her authority, and her action is null and void with regard to her principals unless ratified by them. R. C. C. art. 3010.
Plaintiff, evidently realizing the correctness of the legal proposition stated, specifically alleged that the said principals acquiesced in and ratified the lease and extension by accepting a portion of all amounts constituting the cash consideration thereof, and by openly stating to plaintiff and others that their said agent had full authority in their behalf to enter into said agreements and to sign their names thereto. He further alleged estoppel arising out of their failure to protest his drilling operations, to their knowledge, upon the lands of Mrs. Hampton.
Pretermitting consideration of the question of whether the various acts in pais and parol declarations alleged can affect the second lessees acting upon the public records, it is our conclusion that the district judge was correct in maintaining the exception of no cause of action.
Inasmuch as plaintiff relies upon ratification of the lease and extension, and bearing in mind that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Muller
...of an interest in a mineral lease cannot be made the subject of a verbal agreement and cannot be proved by parol evidence. Noble v. Plouf, 154 La. 429, 97 So. 599; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company v. R. O. Roy and Company, 196 La. 121, 198 So. 768; Davidson v. Midstates Oil Corp., 211 La. 882......
-
Bailey v. Alice C. Plantation & Refinery Inc.
...* * *.' 'This rule was approved and followed in Bryant v. Levy 52 La.Ann. 1649, 1664, 28 So. 191, 197 (1900); and Noble v. Plouf, 154 La. 429, 434, 97 So. 599, 600 (1923). 'What appellant and her late husband approved, through their silence and inaction after receipt of these statements, wa......
-
Haynes v. King
... ... 742; Achee v. Caillouet, 197 La. 313, 331, 1 So.2d 530, 536. It must be in writing because mineral rights are classified as immovables. Noble v. Plouf, ... Page 539 ... 154 La. 429, 97 So. 599. Furthermore, the acknowledgment must be recorded in order to effect third persons ... ...
-
Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co.
... ... 58] to the prayer for oyer. Noble v. Plouf, 154 La. 429, 97 So. 599. This is so because plaintiff's demand, being founded on a breach of contract to sell real estate, must be ... ...