Title: Crawford v. Deshotels
Citation: 359 So. 2d 118
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 1978

359 So. 2d 118 (1978) Howard N. CRAWFORD, Jr. v. O. H. DESHOTELS, Jr., et al. No. 61159. Supreme Court of Louisiana. May 22, 1978. Rehearing Denied June 15, 1978. *119 Frank L. Maraist, Baton Rouge, O. H. Deshotels, III, Kaplan, for defendants-applicants. Silas B. Cooper, Jr., Cooper &amp; Sonnier, Abbeville, for plaintiff-respondent. CALOGERO, Justice. We granted writs in this case to review a decision of the Court of Appeal favorable to plaintiff, an independent landman.[1] The case concerns the validity of a contract whereby plaintiff acquired an undivided one-half interest in defendant McDaniel's interest (one-sixth) in thirty-five acres of land, and the provision in that same instrument giving the consequent co-owners (plaintiff Crawford and defendant McDaniels) each a right of first refusal should either thereafter desire to sell their respective interests. Involved also in the litigation is defendant Deshotels, who purchased McDaniel's undivided half-interest, notwithstanding McDaniel's failure to first offer the property to plaintiff Crawford at the same price. Because we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal we will borrow liberally from its opinion which ably sets forth the facts and correctly resolves the legal issues: "IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD, that if ever a bona fide offer is made, and should either Frankie Boutte McDaniel or H. N. Crawford, Jr., desire to sell in whole, part or portion the herein described interest owned by each, the party desiring to sell shall be and is herein obligated to offer to the other party the first chance to buy same at the bona fide offer, such notice to be given to the hereinabove address of either by Registered Mail, and an answer be given the same within thirty days from date notice is received, or it shall be deemed that the option to purchase at the bona fide offer is rejected." With respect to the first issue in the case, the alleged illegal consideration for the sale from Mrs. McDaniel to Crawford, relator in brief vigorously contends that the consideration for the sale was the performance by Crawford of services which constitute the practice of law in violation of R.S. 37:213. That statute prohibits persons not licensed to practice law in Louisiana among other things, from practicing law, furnishing attorneys or counsel, rendering legal service and rendering or furnishing legal services or advice. Our assessment of the record in this case and appreciation of the applicable law coincide with that of the Court of Appeal which relied heavily upon a recent decision of this Court, Placid Oil Company v. Taylor, 306 So. 2d 664 (La.1975). We agree with the Court of Appeal which resolved this legal issue in the following manner: The conclusion of the Court of Appeal as well as our own is an affirmance of the trial judge who held: "This Court finds that Mr. Crawford did nothing more than to perform the services historically rendered by landman." Relator's second contention is that, even if the agreement between McDaniel and Crawford is founded upon a valid consideration, the portion of that agreement here at issue, an option, is invalid on other grounds. The clause of the contract or quitclaim is fully related hereinabove. Pertinently it provides: Relator contends that the agreement cannot be enforced because it is an option in perpetuity and contrary to the public policy of Louisiana as expressed in Article 2462 of the Civil Code. That article provides: This Court has applied Civil Code Article 2462, when pertinent, and held void an option for an indefinite time. Becker and Assoc., Inc. v. Lou-Ark Equipment Rental Co., Inc., 331 So. 2d 474 (La.1976); Bristo v. Christine Oil &amp; Gas Co., 139 La. 312, 71 So. 521 (1916); Clark v. Dixon, 254 So. 2d 482 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1971). The article and the jurisprudence on which relator relies, however, are not applicable here, for there is not here following "the purchase of such option" or in this case entry of the contract a continuing right or option to accept (or reject) an extant offer or promise to sell as contemplated by Article 2462. Rather there is here what is more commonly described as a right of first refusal, or as the contract says, a right to be afforded a "first chance to buy" at a price equal to any bona fide offer which McDaniel should receive and be interested in accepting. Thus, the stipulated time requirement of Article 2462 is not applicable. The only case in the jurisprudence directly on point is Price v. Town of Ruston, 171 La. 985, 132 So. 653 (La.1931) wherein this Court rejected a contention similar to relators' with the following language: For the foregoing reasons there is no merit to relator's contention that the pertinent clause of the contract is null and void in violation of Civil Code Article 2462. Relying on Civil Code Article 2291, relator Deshotels asserts that Crawford should be estopped from asserting the validity of the option clause in the McDaniel-Crawford contract because of Crawford's plea of res judicata to an earlier Deshotels suit. Deshotels asserts that Crawford's plea was an admission of the validity of the McDaniel-Deshotels sale, and, impliedly, a confession that the option clause in the McDaniel-Crawford contract was invalid. A judicial confession under Article 2291 is a party's explicit admission of an adverse factual element; it has the effect of waiving evidence as to the subject of the admission. Jackson v. Gulf Insurance Company, 250 La. 819, 199 So. 2d 886 (1967); Farley v. Frost-Johnson Lumber Co., 133 La. 497, 63 So. 122 (1913). Moreover, a judicial admission does not estop the confessor from denying the correctness of his earlier admission unless the party claiming the benefit from the confession has relied on that admission to his prejudice. Johnson v. Kennedy, 235 La. 212, 103 So. 2d 93 (1958); Succession of Turner, 235 La. 206, *123 103 So. 2d 91 (1958); 19 La.L.Rev. 433 (1959). Even assuming that Deshotels is correct in his assertion that Crawford, by virtue of certain pleadings, has implicitly acknowledged the invalidity of the contract between Mrs. McDaniels and himself, (an assumption that we do not concede is correct), that acknowledgment was simply not explicit enough to constitute a judicial confession under Article 2291. Moreover, Deshotels has neither alleged nor shown any reliance or detrimental change of position based on the alleged confession. Consequently, Deshotels' argument that Crawford has made a judicial confession is meritless. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed, all costs to be assessed against plaintiff. AFFIRMED. SUMMERS, J., dissents. DIXON, J., concurs with reasons. DENNIS, J., dissents with reasons. DIXON, Justice (concurring). I respectfully concur. C.C. 2462 clearly contemplates that an option will be for only a "stipulated time," which I take to mean a time certain a day on the calendar or a day on which it is contemplated that an event will occur which is not within the control of the person granting the option. However, it is not necessary to nullify the option in the absence of such a "stipulated time" if the option is treated in the same way a contract of sale of minerals is treated. That is, if the option is not exercised within a ten year period, the obligation is extinguished for nonuse by liberative prescription. DENNIS, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. By characterizing the defendant's conduct as "landman's activities" and the contract as a "first refusal" the courts cannot alter the actualities. The activities amounted to an unauthorized practice of law and the contract was an invalid option. [1] The term landman, as distinguished from an independent landman like plaintiff, is defined as "An employee of an oil company whose primary duties are the management of the company's relations with its landowners. Such duties include the securing of oil and gas leases, lease amendments, pooling and unitization agreements and instruments necessary for curing title defects from landowners." Howard R. Williams, Oil and Gas Terms (4th ed. 1976).