Tuloma Pipe & Supply Co. v. Townsend
Decision Date | 01 March 1938 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 27829 |
Citation | 77 P.2d 535,1938 OK 151,182 Okla. 321 |
Parties | TULOMA PIPE & SUPPLY CO. v. TOWNSEND |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR - Review of Equity Case - Conclusiveness of Findings.
"In a purely equitable action, the presumption is in favor of the finding of the trial court, but this court will consider the whole record and weigh the evidence; such findings as are not clearly against the weight of the evidence will stand affirmed on appeal, but where other findings are clearly against the weight of the evidence, this court will enter or cause to be entered such findings as the trial court should have made." Douglas v. Douglas. 176 Okla. 378, 56 P.2d 362.
2. REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS - Relief Limited to Making Writing Speak Former Agreement of Parties.
"Relief, by way of reformation of written instruments which may be had under proper circumstances in a court of equity, is limited to making the writing speak the former agreement of the parties, and the court cannot make a new or different contract for the parties." Douglas v. Douglas, 176 Okla. 378. 56 P.2d 362.
3. SAME - Essentials of Mutual Mistake as Ground for Reformation.
Where a party relies for reformation of a written instrument on the ground of mutual mistake, it must be such mistake as he could not by reasonable diligence get knowledge of when he was put on inquiry.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; Floyd E. Staley, Judge.
Action by L.D. Townsend against the Tuloma Pipe & Supply Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
S.F. Goldwyn, for plaintiff in error.
R.K. Robertson and Wm. Taylor, for defendant in error.
¶1 L.D. Townsend, defendant in error, filed an action against Tuloma Pipe & Supply Company, plaintiff in error, seeking to recover an alleged balance due under a contract. From a verdict of $886.08, the amount sued for, defendant brings this appeal.
¶2 The parties will be termed plaintiff and defendant, as they appeared below.
¶3 The only question is whether the judgment and decree of the court is sustained by the evidence.
¶4 On about the 10th of June, 1935, the plaintiff, who owned a certain leasehold in Creek county with an oil well thereon, was approached by H.E. Harvey, defendant's agent, who desired to negotiate a purchase of the same. After preliminary discussions and an inspection of the leasehold and equipment thereon, Harvey called the defendant and was directed to bring plaintiff to its offices in Tulsa.
¶5 Mr. Madvine, president of the defendant company, discussed the deal with plaintiff in the presence of Harvey, and then all went to the office of defendant's attorney, where they prepared a contract, the pertinent parts of which are:
¶6 Title was approved, $1,750 paid plaintiff, and defendant took possession. After some efforts to make the well a producer, the defendant decided to remove the equipment.
¶7 Much of the casing was pulled, including some 6 7/8" and 8 1/4" valued at $36.08, but only a small quantity of the 12 1/2" and the 15 1/2" casings were obtained. The remainder of these two sizes were cemented together and could not be removed.
¶8 To the plaintiff's petition, which sought recovery for balance due under the contract, defendant filed an answer and cross-petition verified by Mr. Madvine, pertinent portions of which are as follows:
"Defendant in this regard says that at the time of the negotiations between the plaintiff and defendant, by and through its agent, H.E. Harvey, looking to the withdrawal of the casing from the well, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Suburban Realty Co. v. Cantley
...of the parties, and the court cannot make a new or different contract for the parties .’ ") (emphasis added) (quoting Tuloma Pipe & Supply Co. v. Townsend , 1938 OK 151, ¶ 0, 182 Okla. 321, 77 P.2d 535)(syl. no. 2 by the Court). There must exist a "preliminary agreement, a prior contract, e......
-
Suburban Realty Co. v. Cantley
...of the parties, and the court cannot make a new or different contract for the parties.'")(emphasis added)(quoting Tuloma Pipe & Supply Co. v. Townsend, 1938 OK 151, ¶ 0, 77 P.2d 535)(syl. no. 2 by the Court). There must exist a "preliminary agreement, a prior contract, either written or ver......
-
Stillwater Nat. Bank and Trust Co. v. Woolley
...or different contract for the parties. Dennis v. American-First Title & Trust Co., 405 P.2d 993 (Okl.1965); Tuloma Pipe & Supply Co. v. Townsend, 182 Okl. 321, 77 P.2d 535 (1938). Salt Fork contends that there are disputed issues of fact concerning a mutual mistake on the part of Stillwater......
-
Suburban Realty Co. v. Cantley
...of the parties, and the court cannot make a new or different contract for the parties .’ ") (emphasis added) (quoting Tuloma Pipe & Supply Co. v. Townsend , 1938 OK 151, ¶ 0, 182 Okla. 321, 77 P.2d 535 (syl. no. 2 by the Court) ). There must exist a " ‘preliminary agreement, a prior contrac......