Regier v. Ameranda Petroleum Corporation

• Decision Date: 10 March 1934
• Docket Number: 31692.
• Citation: 30 P.2d 136,139 Kan. 177
• Parties: REGIER et al. v. AMERANDA PETROLEUM CORPORATION et al.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

30 P.2d 136

139 Kan. 177

REGIER et al. v. AMERANDA PETROLEUM CORPORATION et al.

No. 31692.

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 10, 1934

Syllabus by the Court.

In cross-action for reformation on ground that through mutual mistake strip conveyed to township was describe as being three rods wide, whereas strip sold was only two rods wide evidence sustained finding that there was no mistake.

In grantors' cross-action to reform deed to township on ground that agreement that there should be reverter to grantors on abandonment of highway was ommitted from deed through mutual mistake, evidence sustained finding that there was no mistake.

Evidence established that grantors seeking reformation of deed on ground of mistake in description had recognized description as written.

Lack of knowledge of alleged mutual mistake in description of land in deed held not to preclude running og statute of limitations on right to seek reformation (Rev. St. 1923, 60--201).

Warranty deed reciting that township was to have and to hold land forever conveyed fee simple and not merely right to use land for highway purposes.

In an action to quiet title to a small tract of land conveyed to a township by the owners for highway purposes about thirty years ago, recently the former owners set up a claim that there was a mutual mistake in the description of the land transferred, in that the strip of land sold was only two rods wide, whereas it was described as being three rods wide, and also the omission of an agreement that there should be a reverter to the owner in case there was a subsequent abandonment of the highway. On the testimony deemed sufficient, the court decided that there was no mistake, that the deed was written as agreed upon, and that the township had acquired a fee-simple title to the land described. Held:

1. That the findings of the court are supported by sufficient evidence.

2. That the evidence showed the grantors had knowledge of the description in the deed when it was executed and at different times afterwards had recognized the description as written and that the purchaser had gained possession of the land sold after the purchase, and that a gas and oil lease executed by the township was valid and entitled the lessee to a decree quieting his title under it.

3. Under the facts the statute of limitations as applied in Railway Company v. Grain Company, 68 Kan. 585, 75 P 1051, 1 Ann.Cas. 639, and a long line of recent cases following it, operated as a bar to reform the contract, and that the earlier case of Duvall v. Simpson, 53 Kan 291, 36 P. 330, and another case following it, have been overruled.

4. The findings of fact of the trial court on the essential points in the case are sustained by the evidence.

5. Other objections urged by appellant considered and held to be without merit.

Appeal from District Court, Harvey County; J. G. Somers, Judge.

Action by J. E. Regier and others against the Ameranda Petroleum Corporation, Abraham P. Froese, and others, wherein Abraham P. Froese filed cross-petition. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

R. R. Vermilion, Earle W. Evans, Joseph G. Carey, W. F. Lilleston, George C. Spradling, and Henry V. Gott, all of Wichita, J. Sidney Nye, of Newton, and F. Dumont Smith, Eustace Smith, and Claude Chalfant, all of Hutchinson, for appellants.

Ezra Branine, Alden E. Branine, and Fred Ice, all of Newton, for appellees.

JOHNSTON Chief Justice.

This was an action to quiet the title to a small tract of land brought by Alton township of Harvey county, for a highway, as owner, and by J. E. Regier as an oil and gas lessee, of a small strip of land 49 1/2 feet wide by 778 1/2 feet in length. The strip in question was a part of a quarter section of land purchased by Abraham P. Froese, in 1890, described as the northwest quarter (N.W. 1/4) of section twenty (20), township twenty-two (22) south, range three (3) west, Harvey county, and has been his home ever since that time. A small creek known as Blaze Fork creek entered the west boundary line from the northwest and meandered in a southeasterly direction for a short distance, and then back in a southwesterly direction for a short distance, where it again crossed the west boundary line of the quarter section. The public had left the section line along the creek and had traveled over onto the land owned by Mr. Froese. To lay the road along the section line would necessarily have meant the building of two bridges, and, to avoid the added expense, the township determined it would be cheaper to buy the land from Mr. Froese, and therefore it bought from him a rectangular piece of ground along the northwest corner of the quarter section which was believed to be wide enough to enable the township to construct a highway on the east of and circling the creek. The purchase was made, and Mr. Froese and his wife thereupon executed and delivered to the township a warranty deed conveying the small tract on July 25, 1902, and it was recorded on February 2, 1903.

In the answer and cross-petition filed by Abraham P. Froese he alleged there was a mutual mistake made in the description of the strip sold, in that the strip was to be two rods wide instead of three, that there was an agreement that, if the road should ever be abandoned as a highway, it should revert to him, and that the deed as written did not contain the reverter clause. He claimed that he did not learn of the omissions in the description and the failure to include the reverter clause until August 30, 1932, about the time this action was brought. That was about thirty years afterwards. The asked that the deed be reformed to correct the description by making it contain the clause that it would revert to him and his assigns, if the highway was ever abandoned. The court found that he executed and acknowledged the deed for a consideration of $25 on July 25, 1902, and conveyed to the township and its successors and assigns the fee-simple title to the strip out of the northwest quarter of his farm beginning at a fixed point running east three rods to another fixed point, then south forty-seven rods to a point; thence west three rods to a point; then north forty-seven rods to the place of beginning; and that the deed was duly acknowledged by a notary public, A. B. Bueler.

After the notary had drawn the deed, including the description, in the presence of both grantor and his wife, the instrument was duly recorded on February 2, 1903. After finding the nature of the creek and the way in which it meandered, and the fact that vehicles were driving across the land, and that Froese had complained about it, the township concluded to purchase a right of way along the bank of the creek in order to avoid the expense of building two bridges, if the section line was followed, that Froese negotiated with the officers of the township and agreed to sell to the township a strip three rods wide and forty-seven rods long, and the deed was accordingly drawn, and that the deed conveyed exactly the land intended to be conveyed, both grantors and grantees assuming that a strip three rods wide was sufficient for the purposes intended.

The court found that Froese and his wife each had individual and actual knowledge of the description contained in the deed at the time it was delivered and acknowledged, and that Froese on two different mortgages, in 1911, had referred to the same description in other instruments, and that the township was now in full possession of the real estate described in the deed, that the reasonable value of the land at the time of the execution of the deed was about $25, and that for nearly thirty years thereafter, it had no value for oil or gas purposes. On August 31, 1932, the township executed and delivered to J. E. Regier, one of the plaintiffs, an oil and gas mining lease, on which oil and gas had recently been discovered, and this discovery probably accounts for this litigation. The court found that Regier was the owner of an oil and gas lease upon the above-described real estate, and was entitled to a decree quieting his title in and to the interest conveyed to him in the above-described lease, holding that it was a valid and subsisting oil and gas mining lease. Judgment was accordingly entered.

The defendants complain of a finding of the court stating in effect that the preliminary negotiations for the sale of the strip of land were in order to avoid the expense of building two bridges on the section line, and that some of the parties negotiated for the purchase and stepped off what they thought would be necessary for the road, but had misjudged the actual width necessary; that the township officers agreed to buy and Froese agreed to sell to the township, a rectangular strip three rods wide and forty-seven rods long for $25. Negotiations were carried on in German, as Froese and his wife did not then speak English, and that the deed conveyed exactly the land intended to be conveyed; both grantors and grantees assuming that a strip three rods wide would be sufficient for the purpose. These men who conducted the negotiations...