North Am. Uranium, Inc. v. Johnston, 2779
Decision Date | 08 October 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 2779,2779 |
Parties | NORTH AMERICAN URANIUM, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L. A. JOHNSTON, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
R. G. Diefenderfer, Sheridan, and Maxwell Bentley, Moab, Utah, for appellant.
Thomas Morgan, Gillette, and John Hjellum, Jamestown, N. D., for respondent.
Before BLUME, C. J., and HARNSBERGER and PARKER, JJ.
This is an action to quiet title to certain mining claims known as the Jake claims and described as follows:
'Lode mining claims known as the Jake Claims numbered 1 to 18 inclusive, as located, surveyed, filed and platted, in Sections 19 and 20 in Township 41, North of Range 73, West of the 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming, more particularly located as follows: S 1/2, and the South 360 feet of the S 1/2 N 1/2 of Section 19; and the West 120 feet of the W 1/2 SW 1/4 and an oblong tract 360 feet north and south by 120 feet east and west in the southwest corner of the SW 1/4 NW 1/4 of Section 20, Township 41, North of Range 73, West of the 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming.'
On July 6, 1955, the following document was made and executed by and between Peter Mileski, Jr., and Harold T. Mankin on the one hand and L. A. Johnston on the other, the document being signed on behalf of Johnston by F. A. Goodbrod, his partner or agent:
'Know All Men By These Presents:
'That Pete Mileski, Jr., & Harold T. Mankin, first party, and L. A. Johnston, second party, do hereby agree as follows, (by F. A. G.)
'Witnesseth:
'That the first party being the owner of the hereinafter specifically described lode mining claims, for and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration, does hereby sell, convey and assign to second party all of first party's right, title and interest thereto, except as hereinafter specifically provided, to the lode mining claims situated in Campbell County, Wyoming, and described as follows, to-wit:
'That the second party shall keep said mining claims in good standing as to validation or assessment work and recording of required assessment work affidavits and for each assessment work period shall, on or before 60 days before date of requirement for completion of the same, furnish to the first party, or assigns, proof that such work has been done and in the event that second party, or assigns, desires to give up or abandon said mining claims second party shall at the option of the first party furnish a conveyance or reassignment of all rights to said claims at least 60 days prior to time for completing annual assessment work thereon.
'This agreement is binding upon the respective parties hereto and their respective heirs and assigns, and the right of assignment or transfer or conveyance by either party of their respective interest, either in whole or in part, is hereby permitted.
'This agreement is executed in duplicate this 6 day of July, 1955, and each party hereto acknowledges receipt of an executed copy hereof.
'/s/ Peter Mileski, Jr.
'/s/ Harold T. Mankin
'First Party
'/s/ L. A. Johnston
'Second Party by F. A. Goodbrod' For convenience we shall hereafter refer to this document as a conveyance or instrument of conveyance. It was introduced in evidence by counsel for the plaintiff in the early part of the trial after cross-examination of the defendant under the statute.
On February 21, 1956, North American Uranium, Inc., a corporation, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, bought the Jake claims and other claims from Mileski and Mankin. Thereafter, and on March 28, 1956, plaintiff filed its amended petition setting forth facts as in an ordinary action to quiet title, and further asked an injunction to prevent Johnston from removing any minerals from the Jake claims. A temporary injunction was issued. Johnston, the defendant, filed an answer and cross-petition. He alleged that he became the owner of the mining claims in question on July 6, 1955, and he asked that the title thereto be quieted in him. A reply was filed by plaintiff denying the affirmative allegations of the defendant, and again alleging that the plaintiff is the owner of the mining claims. The trial court entered judgment denying the defendant any right under his answer and cross-petition, quieting title to the claims in the plaintiff and absolving it from any liability under the bond given in connection with the issuance of injunction. From this judgment the defendant has appealed, assigning as error the admission of parol testimony to contradict and vary the terms of his written conveyance, and that the judgment of the trial court is contrary to the evidence and contrary to law. The controlling questions are those hereinafter discussed.
Before proceeding further, we may incidentally mention that counsel for plaintiff seem to have been under the impression, and perhaps still are, that the conveyance to Johnston was invalid because it was not signed by Johnston personally, or by an agent who had a power of attorney duly acknowledged. They mention § 66-127, W.C.S.1945, which relates to the power of attorney which an agent must have in order to convey land. Of course it is elementary that an agent may be appointed to transact any lawful business for and on behalf of the principal. 1 Mechem on Agency, 2d Ed., § 80. For the agent to convey and interest in real property and have the conveyance recorded, he must have a power of attorney duly acknowledged. In this case, the agent did not undertake to convey any interest in land. He merely accepted a conveyance on behalf of his principal, and he had a right to do that under the general rules of agency.
In the case at bar the instrument of conveyance to Johnston was not acknowledged, and hence was not entitled to be placed of record under the laws of this State. Still it was perfectly good as between the parties. 1 C.J.S. Acknowledgments § 17, p. 796; 76 C.J.S. Records § 32, p. 130. The question then is whether or not it is good as to the plaintiff, a subsequent purchaser. The general rule is stated in 1 C.J.S. Acknowledgments § 17, p. 797, that an unacknowledged instrument is ordinarily effective 'except as to subsequent purchasers or creditors without actual notice.' Section 66-119, W.C.S.1945, states as follows:
'Every conveyance of real estate within this state, hereafter made, which shall not be recorded as required by law, shall be void, as against any subsequent purchaser or purchasers in good faith and for a valuable consideration of the same real estate or any portion thereof, whose conveyance shall be first duly recorded.'
We construed that statute in the case of York v. James, 60 Wyo. 222, 148 P.2d 596, 598. We there held that the burden of proof is on the subsequent purchaser to show that he purchased the property in question in good faith and without notice. In that case we approved the rule laid down in Bell v. Pleasant, 145 Cal. 410, 78 P. 957, 959, 104 Am.St.Rep. 61, where that court stated as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gajewski v. Bratcher
...Co., 208 Va. 796, 160 S.E.2d 786 (1968); Fleetham v. Schneekloth, 52 Wash.2d 176, 324 P.2d 429 (1958); North American Uranium, Inc. v. Johnston, 77 Wyo. 332, 316 P.2d 325 (1957). We are convinced that the rule established by the modern trend of judicial authority is sound, reasonable and ju......
-
Roussalis v. Wyoming Medical Center, Inc.
...of Intent which evidence is inadmissible to prove a written modification of the Letter of Intent, citing North American Uranium, Inc. v. Johnston, 77 Wyo. 332, 316 P.2d 325, 335 (1957) (citing 32 C.J.S. § 1005, 1011). WMC also contends the doctors' "documents" do not reference the numerous ......
-
Allen v. Allen
...a written instrument, absolute on its face, cannot be varied by parol testimony but, as observed in North American Uranium, Inc. v. Johnston, 1957, 77 Wyo. 332, 348, 316 P.2d 325, 330, citing 3 Corbin on Contracts § 329, the rule has so many vagaries that it is the despair of law teachers a......
-
BHP Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Okie
...Petroleum Corp. v. Sledge, 151 Okl. 160, 3 P.2d 167 (1931).3 Meyer v. Ludvik, 680 P.2d 459 (Wyo.1984); North American Uranium, Inc. v. Johnston, 77 Wyo. 332, 316 P.2d 325 (1957); Gaido v. Tysdal, 68 Wyo. 490, 235 P.2d 741 (1951).4 Mad River Boat Trips, Inc. v. Jackson Hole Whitewater, Inc.,......