Howard v. Manning

52 Citing cases

  1. Taylor v. Brindley

    164 F.2d 235 (10th Cir. 1947)   Cited 28 times

    But in the absence of an express agreement, one cotenant is not the agent of the others, and an oil and gas lease executed by him is effective only as to his interest, and ineffective as to his cotenants. Earp v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 167 Okla. 86, 27 P.2d 855, 91 A.L.R. 188; Moody v. Wagner, 167 Okla. 99, 23 P.2d 633; Howard v. Manning, 79 Okla. 165, 192 P. 358, 12 A.L.R. 819; Prairie Oil Gas Co. v. Allen, 8 Cir., 2 F.2d 566, 40 A.L.R. 1389; Thornton Oil Gas, Sec. 435; Tiffany Real Property, Vol. 2, Sec. 458; See Annot. 40 A.L.R. 1400, 91 A.L.R. 205. This being so, it follows that if the deed and contract established merely a cotenancy in the minerals, our quest is at an end, because there was no express authority of one cotenant to lease the interest of the other, and the law will not infer any such authority simply because a leasing was contemplated.

  2. Cahaba Forests, LLC v. Hay

    927 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Ala. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    See id. at 787. In support of its recognition of the general law, the court in Oswell cited an Oklahoma case, Howard v. Manning, 79 Okla. 165, 192 P. 358, 361 (1920) as follows: [A] lessor could not fractionalize or apportion the lessee's covenant by either conveying the lands to several parties as tenants in common or dying and leaving it to a number of heirs.

  3. Fredeking v. Grimmett

    140 W. Va. 745 (W. Va. 1955)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that doing so places the lessee "in [an] inequitable position" because the lessee "is still liable as a lessee to some of the tenants in common, although he cannot enjoy any of the benefit of his lease without becoming a trespasser"

    The covenant in the lease of the lessee Grimmett not to assign or transfer the lease without the written consent of the lessors is indivisible and entire and may not be apportioned by the death of the lessor J. G. Fredeking among his heirs so that his heirs or their successors or the surviving lessor Nell Fredeking as tenants in common can enforce the forfeiture provision of the lease either in its entirety or proportionately as to the interest owned by each of them. All the heirs of J. G. Fredeking, or their successors, and the surviving lessor Nell Fredeking, must concur and unite in the enforcement of the forfeiture provision for its breach by the lessee; and there can be no forfeiture of the lease by less than all the tenants in common who own undivided interests in the property. Howard v. Manning, 79 Okla. 165, 192 P. 358, 12 A.L.R. 819. A forfeiture provision in a contract of lease upon real estate owned jointly by tenants in common is indivisible and such lease can not be forfeited by less than all the owners of the undivided interests for the reason that if the lease could be forfeited by less than all the owners of the undivided interests the lessee would be bound by the lease as to some of such owners and discharged as to other such owners.

  4. Bachenheimer v. Palm Springs Etc. Corp.

    116 Cal.App.2d 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 19 times

    [11] To admit, as they do, that by the agreements under consideration appellant was granted and acquired, the "right to keep it (the bungalow) on the land" for a period of 99 years is necessarily to concede that the agreement constitutes a lease of the land upon which it is erected, for a lease is nothing other than an instrument by which one is granted, upon stated terms and conditions, the right to occupy a parcel of land to the exclusion of the grantor. ( Morris v. Iden, 23 Cal.App. 388, 393 [ 138 P. 120]; Williams v. Miller, 68 Cal. 290, 293 [9 P. 166]; Tiedeman, Real Property, § 538; Howard v. Manning, 79 Okla. 165 [ 192 P. 358, 360, 12 A.L.R. 819, 821].) [12] While in the foregoing discussion we have undertaken to point out that lessee's obligation to pay a proportionate part of the maintenance cost of and taxes upon the entire tract of land of which the "leased premises" are a part, answers to the description of rent, it may be noted that reservation of rent is not an essential requirement of a lease.

  5. Axis Petroleum Co. v. Taylor

    42 Cal.App.2d 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)   Cited 2 times

    A notice by her declaring a forfeiture was not sufficient at common law. In Howard v. Manning, 79 Okl. 165 [ 192 P. 358, 12 A.L.R. 819], the Supreme Court of Oklahoma made a thorough examination of the law back to and including "Coke upon Littleton". On page 363 that court said: "The alleged forfeiture for breach of covenant, not having been declared by declaration of forfeiture joined in by all the tenants in common, and the alleged forfeiture not being self-executing, the lease, in so far as this record shows, was a subsisting and valid lease for the entire year of 1917."

  6. Aire Cardinal International, Inc. v. United Air Leasing Corp.

    705 F.2d 1263 (10th Cir. 1983)

    Accord: Stone v. First Wyoming Bank, 625 F.2d 332 (10th Cir. 1980); In re Wil-Low Cafeterias, 95 F.2d 306 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 304 U.S. 567, 58 S.Ct. 950, 82 L.Ed. 1533 (1938); 15A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations §§ 7360, 7362-65 (Rev. ed. 1981). In Howard v. Manning, 79 Okl. 165, 192 P. 358 (1920), the court recognized the validity of forfeiture provisions, treating them as covenants for the benefit of the lessor, who may elect to exercise them upon proof of a breach of a covenant triggering the right of termination. And in Ritter v. Perma-Stone Co., 325 P.2d 442 (Okl. 1958), the court held that by virtue of a contract providing for its termination by defendant for failure of the plaintiff to pay any money due thereunder, the power reserved was not conditional upon a nonpayment of a sum constituting a "major" breach but rather the nonpayment of "any" sum owing, even though minor in character.

  7. Sadler v. Pub. Nat. Bk. Tr. Co. of New York

    172 F.2d 870 (10th Cir. 1949)   Cited 14 times
    Applying Oklahoma law, similarly, but allowing partition

    No one of the cotenants is authorized to act for the other in enforcing the forfeiture. Hawkins v. Klein, 124 Okla. 161, 255 P. 570; Howard v. Manning, 79 Okla. 165, 192 P. 358, 12 A.L.R. 819; Utilities Production Corporation v. Riddle, 161 Okla. 99, 16 P.2d 1092. As stated, neither Hamon nor the United States joined in the prayer for a cancellation of the lease.

  8. Kentucky Natural Gas Corporation v. Duggins

    165 F.2d 1011 (6th Cir. 1948)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that "if the intervening petition . . . brings into the action an indispensable party, and upon proper alignment his citizenship destroys the previously existing diversity of citizenship, the District court loses jurisdiction to proceed in the action."

    Union Gas Oil Co. v. Gillem, 212 Ky. 293, 298, 279 S.W. 626. The general rule seems well settled both by Federal law and Kentucky law that in an action to rescind a contract all of the parties to the contract are indispensable parties. Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 58 U.S. 129, 138, 139, 15 L.Ed. 158; Commonwealth Trust Company v. Smith, 266 U.S. 152, 45 S.Ct. 26, 69 L.Ed. 219; Utterback v. Houser, 184 Ky. 789, 792, 213 S.W. 191; Union Gas Oil Co. v. Gillem, supra; Howard v. Manning, 79 Okla. 165, 192 P. 358, 12 A.L.R. 819. See also Niles-Bement Co. v. Iron Moulders Union, 254 U.S. 77, 41 S.Ct. 39, 65 L.Ed. 145; Roos v. Texas Co., 2 Cir., 23 F.2d 171, 172.

  9. American Surety Co. of New York v. U.S.

    112 F.2d 903 (10th Cir. 1940)   Cited 16 times
    In American Surety Co. of New York v. United States, 10 Cir., 112 F.2d 903, loc. cit. 906, a bond was given to secure performance of a lease.

    The lease did not automatically terminate upon the neglect or refusal of Gunther to pay the advanced royalties sixty days after they became due and payable. It is well settled that a provision for forfeiture for nonpayment of rental is for the benefit of the lessor and that upon default he may treat the lease as void or not at his election. Stewart v. Griffith, 217 U.S. 323, 329, 30 S.Ct. 528, 54 L.Ed. 782, 19 Ann. Cas. 639; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown, 253 U.S. 101, 112, 40 S.Ct. 460, 64 L.Ed. 803; 1 Underhill, Landlord and Tenant, § 401; Williston on Contracts, Rev.Ed., Vol. 3, § 746. See, also, Howard v. Manning, 79 Okla. 165, 192 P. 358, 362, 12 A.L.R. 819. The judgment is affirmed.

  10. Transcontinental Oil Co. v. Spencer

    6 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1925)   Cited 4 times

    But the mere occurrence of the lessee's default in that regard did not put an end to its rights under the lease, if a lessor failed to claim the benefit of it with reasonable promptness, or, with knowledge of the default, so conducted himself as to signify his consent to the lease remaining in effect, or to influence the lessee to change its position by proceeding with the work in reliance on the belief, so induced by conduct of the lessor, that the lease remained in force. Howard v. Manning, 79 Okla. 165, 192 P. 358, 12 A.L.R. 819. A lessor is not entitled to occupy the inconsistent position of acquiescing in the lessee going on under the lease, and at the same time retaining the right to rescind for a known breach of a condition by the lessee. Galveston, etc., Co. v. Galveston, H. S.A. Ry. Co. (D.C.) 284 F. 137; Id. (C.C.A.) 287 F. 1021.