Title: Whitaker v. Walter

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

93 N.W.2d 799 (1958) Jerome A. WHITAKER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bertha Haraldson WALTER, Defendant and Appellant. No. 7784. Supreme Court of North Dakota. December 23, 1958. *800 John O. Garaas, Watford City, for appellant. Joseph P. Stevens, Minot, for respondent. GRIMSON, Chief Justice. The plaintiff and the defendant in this case entered into an agreement by letter whereby plaintiff bought from defendant seventeen oil and gas royalties which she owned in McKenzie County, North Dakota, for $10,000. That contract is not disputed. When it came to transfer of these royalties defendant desired to retain three of them. It is admitted that upon some further negotiations on that subject the defendant assigned and delivered to plaintiff fourteen of such royalties and received the $10,000. The remaining three royalties were retained by the defendant. Plaintiff claims defendant agreed in these negotiations, which resulted in the delivery of the fourteen assignments to later assign one-half interest in two of those *801 royalties to plaintiff and brings suit to compel the defendant to assign to him such additional royalties, consisting of one-half of one percent royalty of the oil and gas that might be produced from the Southwest Quarter (SW¼) of Section 23, in Township 152, Range 96, and one-half of one percent royalty of the oil and gas that might be produced from the South Half (S½) of Section 7, in Township 152, Range 95. Defendant claims there was no agreement to that effect. The District Court decided in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appeals and asks for a trial de novo. The evidence shows that the plaintiff is an oil broker, living in Minot, North Dakota. The defendant lives in St. Petersburg, Florida. She had inherited from her deceased husband seventeen oil royalties in McKenzie County. After ascertaining from two friends that the reasonable value thereof would be $10,000 she made an offer in writing on April 12, 1956, to the plaintiff to sell these royalties for $10,000. The plaintiff wrote an acceptance of that offer on April 27, 1956. On May 10, 1956, defendant received the royalty assignments for execution. On checking them over she found some notations on some of the assignments which made her worry over her title thereto and apparently she concluded to withdraw the three assignments so involved. On May 22, 1956, the plaintiff and defendant had a telephone conversation about this desire of the defendant. After that telephone conversation plaintiff wired the defendant as follows: This telegram contains an amendment of the original contract, to the effect that defendant would send the fourteen royalty assignments to the Union National Bank but withhold the three assignments until she came to Minot and that they then would arbitrate as to them. Plaintiff also agreed not to hold defendant responsible as to the titles of the royalties assigned. Upon receiving this telegram, defendant, on May 23rd, mailed the fourteen royalty assignments to the Union National Bank of Minot with the instruction to deliver them to plaintiff upon payment of $10,000. Later that day defendant received a letter from the plaintiff, dated May 23rd, in which he said: This letter states that an amendment to the original agreement to the effect that the defendant sent the fourteen royalty assignments to the Union National Bank and retained the three royalties for future compromise, the terms of which he set forth, and further that title was waived and payment of $10,000 to be made on delivery of the fourteen royalty assignments, all of which was carried out. As to the three royalties defendant was retaining, he had said in the telegram that they would "arbitrate" when defendant came to Minot. That, he explained in this letter further by saying he would "compromise" when she came to North Dakota, and that he would then agree to the defendant retaining one of the royalties if she would assign to him one-half of her interest in the other two royalties. The evidence indicates the plaintiff had become involved in sales of some of those royalties and in order to get them transferred he was willing to compromise on the three royalties in question. On May 26, 1956, the defendant wrote the plaintiff as follows: In this letter she shows she carried out the final agreement as to the fourteen assignments. When she says that his "suggestion" is "satisfactory" she refers to the compromise proposed. If there is any doubt about that she confirms that by adding that when she comes to Minot in June she "will get in touch with you and Mr. McCarthy to complete the transfer of these three leases." Thereby she accepted that compromise. The original contract for the seventeen royalties was thus amended. Defendant did go to Minot and had a talk with the plaintiff. She, however, did not execute the transfer of the royalties as she agreed to do. No further agreements were made. Plaintiff then brings this action to compel her performance of that last agreement. Even if the negotiations preceding the letter and telegram were oral the plaintiff made an offer in writing of what *803 he would do as a compromise. The defendant accepted that offer in writing by her letter of May 26, 1956. The amendment of the original contract, therefore, was in writing and is binding upon the parties. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. BURKE, MORRIS, and SATHRE, JJ., concur.