McClintick v. Leonards

California Court of Appeal Feb 7, 1930 No. Docket No. 92.Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was obligated to pay the contract amount because he prepared the ambiguous agreement, assumed the duty of securing the necessary consent, and waived any objections to the form of the consent provided by failing to object.

Issues

Whether the respondent was required to obtain the written consent of the trustee to validate the oil lease.
Whether the letter provided by the trustee constituted sufficient written consent under the terms of the agreement.
Whether the defendant waived objections to the form of the consent by failing to communicate them to the respondent.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If an offer of performance of an obligation be defective, the offeree must object on that ground or the defect is waived and he cannot be heard to urge such objection in a subsequent suit”

“He cannot escape payment of the money on the ground that the form of the consent given was not to his liking, it appearing that he failed to object to it and failed to ask for another in a more definite form.”

MARKS, J.

Respondent commenced this action against R. T. Leonards to recover $1300 alleged to be due under the terms of a written contract. Judgment was rendered in favor of respondent and after the appeal had been taken, Leonards died and appellant was substituted herein.

The action grew out of an oil lease on real property situated in Kern County, California, the record title to which stood in the name of Alex Kirkpatrick, trustee. Respondent and H. A. McClintick, his mother, were purchasing the property under an executory contract of sale.

On January 30, 1926, Leonards himself prepared and presented to respondent three documents, consisting of an oil lease in triplicate, a letter to himself and an agreement between himself and respondent. On the same day the three copies of the oil lease were signed by G. W. McClintick and Catherine McClintick, his wife, and H. A. McClintick, by G. W. McClintick, her attorney-in-fact, as lessors, and R. T.

[770]

Leonards as lessee. One copy was kept by Leonards and another sent to Alex Kirkpatrick, who received the same.

The letter and agreement are important to the ease and are set forth in full in words and figures as follows:

“Delano, California, January 30th, 1926.

“Mr. R. T. Leonards,

“728 South Spring Street,

“Los Angeles, California.

“Dear Sir:

“I am handing you herewith Oil and Gas lease in triplicate conveying to you or your order the right to explore certain lands for oil or gas.

“These lease is more fully described as to detail as being situate in Section twenty-seven Township twenty-seven S. R. 24 E. M. D. B. & M. Kern County.

“The present title to these lands is vested in Alex Kirkpatrick or Alex Kirkpatrick, Trustee, of Los Angeles, California.

“The described lands as set forth in said lease dated January 30th, 1926, is being purchased by the undersigned, G. W. McClintick and H. A. McClintiek, a widow of Denver, Colorado, each of the above named parties having a joint one-half undivided interest in said purchase contract with Alex Kirkpatrick or Alex Kirkpatrick, Trustee.

McClintick v. Leonards

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief