Bogard v. Sweet , 17 Okla. 40 ( 1906 )

Opinion of the court by

PaNCOAst, J.,

The contention of the plaintiffs in error is that the contract is one of monetary consideration, that mentioned in the deed being ten dollars, and that the title after acquired by Sweet from the United States should inure to the benefit of the grantees, and that there is no such case for equity as will warrant the court in cancelling the deed and contract. Very elaborate briefs have been filed, and the case has been argued upon numerous different grounds, many of which we think have no application to the facts in the case, or to any rule that should govern the court in its decision. In fact, many of the questions argued have served only to confuse the court in arriving at the real contention in the ease.

The evidence abundantly shows that Sweet’s purpose in making the contract was to aid in the upbuilding and ad vertising of the town generally, and the printing of a newspaper. In order to do this, he placed this property in the hands of the" parties, in order that they might sell the same and receive compensation therefor. By this contract, the parties became his agents, and he was entitled to a reconveyance of all of the unsold property. All the contentions. of Sweet were conceded by a large number of the persons interested. Some few, however, refused to reconvey, and set up claims to the property, but we cannot see upon what theory they can claim to be the owners of the property as against Sweet and his heirs.

There was a large number of lots transferred, and a large number of notes placed in the company’s hands for collection. The consideration mentioned in the deed is ten dollars, a more nominal sum._ The amount they should receive as compensation was one-third of the sales and from collections. As testified to by some of the witnesses, they soon found that the expense of collecting the notes would be more than their fees, and they simply abandoned any attempt to carry out the provisions of the contract on their part. One of the parties testified he delivered the deed bach to Sweet, all supposing that would be all sufficient.

There is nothing in the case that requires the application of any rule of law, other than those which the above statement justifies. There is absolutely no defense to this action, and the judgment of the trial court was certainly the correct one. Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

All the -Justices concurring.