Pittsburg Vitrified Paving & Building Brick Co. v. Bailey
Citation | 76 Kan. 42,90 P. 803 |
Parties | PITTSBURG VITRIFIED PAVING & BUILDING BRICK CO. v. BAILEY et ux. |
Decision Date | 08 June 1907 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court.
B. and wife, owners of certain lands, entered into a written contract with a corporation, which by its terms granted to the corporation, in consideration of $1 and the agreements made by the company, the privilege of entering upon the land for a term of 10 years and boring gas or oil wells, etc and, in the event of the discovery of oil or gas in paying quantities, conveyed the title to such products for a specified royalty. The company agreed to complete a well within two years or to pay a rental of 25 cents per acre until a well should be completed on the premises. The contract also provided that the term might be extended indefinitely by the discovery of oil or gas on the premises or so long as either should be produced in paying quantities and the rental be paid thereon; also, that the company had the right to surrender the contract at any time, and be thereby discharged from all liability for the nonfulfillment thereof. Held such contract is not, strictly speaking, a lease of the premises, but constitutes a sale by B. and wife to the company of an option to exercise or not to exercise the privilege granted, as the company might choose.
Such contract is not void for want of mutuality. It is of the essence of an option contract that it is not mutual. The purchaser pays his money or does what he agrees to do for the privilege of choosing, whether or not he will perform or claim performance of the contract, and for the consideration received the seller parts with his right of choice.
Where certain terms of a contract are ambiguous, but such terms have been construed and acted upon by the parties interested such construction will be adopted, even though the language used may more strongly suggest another construction.
The amount paid at the execution of the contract and the rental thereafter paid is a sufficient consideration to support the contract in its entirety.
The agreed statement of facts entitles the defendant below to a judgment in its favor.
Error from District Court, Montgomery County; Thos. J. Flannelly, Judge.
Action by Samuel Bailey and Emma Bailey against the Pittsburg Vitrified Paving & Building Brick Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.
This action was brought in the district court of Montgomery county to set aside an oil and gas lease executed by the Baileys to the brick company on 160 acres of land in that county. The case was tried upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts, and, the judgment being adverse to the brick company it comes here for a review of the legal questions involved. The contract involved in this action is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lindlay v. Raydure
... ... remove the same at pleasure. The building was erected ... Thereafter the lessor gave ... 801, 72 C.C.A. 213, and ... Pittsburg V.P. & B.B. Co. v. Bailey, 76 Kan. 42, 90 ... ...
-
Rich v. Doneghey
... ... of laying pipe lines, and of building tanks, power stations, ... and structures ... 823, 156 C. C. A. 335; Pittsburg, etc., Brick Co. v ... Bailey, 76 Kan. 42, 90 ... ...
-
Brown v. Wilson
... ... Rosser, Robertson, ... Bailey, Nelson & Bailey, and James L. Powell, all of ... 764, 45 C. C. A. 604; Pittsburg, etc., Brick Co. v ... Bailey, 76 Kan. 42, 90 ... ...
-
Rich v. Doneghey
...45 C.C.A. 604; Lindlay v. Raydure (D. C.) 239 F. 928; McCullough v. Smith, 243 F. 823, 156 C.C.A. 335; Pittsburg, etc., Brick Co. v. Bailey, 76 Kan. 42, 90 P. 803, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 745; Poe v Ulrey, 233 Ill. 56, 84 N.E. 46; Watford Oil & Gas Co. v. Shipman, 233 Ill. 9, 84 N.E. 53, 122 Am......