Schafer v. Midland Hotel Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Fry v. Hurst

    293 P.2d 552 (Okla. 1956)   Cited 4 times

    have caused a normally prudent or cautious purchaser to have made inquiry as to the true ownership of the one-third mineral interest specified therein. It is immaterial that the language of the deed may, or may not (in view of the law or court decisions on such matters) have been inadequate to carry out the intention of the parties to the Fry-Kight deed. Ordinarily, a trial court's judgment may be considered a finding of every material issue necessary to support it, but where, as here, it is obvious that the trial court (as has the majority) based its decision — not upon the principal issue — but upon a very different one, which, under the law, should not have controlled, then the rule, ordinarily applicable, does not apply. Where it is obvious that a trial judge has not considered an issue necessarily involved in his judgment, the cause will be remanded for a new trial on the same basis as it will where he has erroneously determined such issue against the weight of the evidence. See Schafer v. Midland Hotel Co., 41 Okla. 111, 137 P. 664 (a "reformation" case). If the present judgment, upon careful analysis of it, can be deemed a determination on the question of notice (which it obviously cannot) then it is clearly against the weight of the evidence. If the trial court had found that the wording of the Fry-Kight deed was sufficient as "actual notice" (under the legal definition of that term hereinbefore cited), then, as the undisputed evidence showed that Hurst did not make proper inquiry pursuant to such notice, under the rule hereinbefore quoted from Bakers v. Clopton, supra, he had, or was charged with, actual notice and could not have been a bona fide or innocent purchaser; and therefore possessed no right constituting an obstacle to granting the Frys the relief of reformation and quieting of their title against him they sought by their cross petition.

  2. Bitter Root Creamery Co. v. Muntzer

    90 Mont. 77 (Mont. 1931)   Cited 7 times
    In Bitter Root, plaintiff argued that defendant should not be permitted reformation; the evidence showed that defendant negligently failed to read a note before signing it. 300 P. at 254.

    Before equity will intervene to correct an alleged mutual mistake in a written instrument the evidence of the mistake must be clear, convincing and satisfactory to a moral certainty, free from doubt. ( Humble v. St. John, 72 Mont. 519, 234 P. 475; Jarnatt v. Cooper, 59 Cal. 703; Hochstein v. Berghauser, 123 Cal. 681, 56 P. 547; Cox v. Woods, 67 Cal. 317, 7 P. 722; Ward v. Waterman, 85 Cal. 488, 24 P. 930; Burt v. Los Angeles Olive Growers Assn., 175 Cal. 668, 166 P. 993; Cleveland v. Rankin, 48 Okla. 99, 149 P. 1131; Schafer v. Midland Hotel Co., 41 Okla. 111, 137 P. 664; Suksdorf v. Spokane etc. R. Co., 72 Or. 398, 143 P. 1104; Queen Ins. Co. v. John Spry Lumber Co., 138 Ill. App. 620; Ison v. Sanders, 163 Ky. 605, 174 S.W. 505; Baker v. Montgomery, 78 Neb. 98, 110 N.W. 695.) There is always a strong presumption that a written instrument expresses correctly the intention of the parties.

  3. Aldrich v. Hinds

    116 Okla. 300 (Okla. 1925)   Cited 9 times

    This finding by the court was necessarily a finding against this claim of plaintiff, and embraced adverse findings on every incidental question of fact growing out of the main fact sought to be established. First Nat. Bank of Guymon v. Arnold, 28 Okla. 49. 113 P. 719; Oland v. Malson, 39 Okla. 456, 135 P. 1055; Schaier v. Midland Hotel Co., 41 Okla. 111, 137 P. 664; Tripp v. Deupree, 60 Okla. 47, 158 P. 913; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Boucher, 83 Okla. 42, 200 P. 534. Upon the general finding of fact the court concluded as a matter of law:

  4. Christner v. McKay

    187 P. 207 (Okla. 1920)   Cited 4 times

    The evidence disclosed that Dan Crafton was in South America some place, his exact whereabouts being unknown. The plaintiff offered no rebuttal, nor did she attempt to impeach any of the testimony offered by the defendants in any way. The question presented is, was the evidence of the Christners sufficient to reform the deed? The rule laid down by this court, in the case of Schafer v. Midland Hotel Co., 41 Okla. 111, 137 P. 664, is as follows: "The law does not authorize the reformation of a written contract on the ground of mutual mistake (i. e., a mistake by each of the parties thereto) unless the proof of such mutual mistake is clear and convincing."

  5. Hale v. Record

    146 P. 587 (Okla. 1915)   Cited 5 times

    This issue was submitted to the trial court for determination. The general finding of the court for the defendant included a finding against the contention of plaintiff that Red river was a nonnavigable stream, and amounted to an affirmative finding that it was navigable. Schafer v. Midland Hotel Co., 41 Okla. 111, 137 P. 664. This finding is reasonably supported by the evidence, and is therefore binding upon this court.