Court Opinion

ID: 9528357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:40:17.852315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:47.563098
License: Public Domain

O’NEAL, J.
(dissenting). My understanding of the law, in the situation disclosed by the facts in this case, does not admit of my concurrence in the majority opinion. I think the rule enunciated in Oldfield v. Gypsy Oil & Gas Co., 123 Okla. 293, 252 P. 298; Brazell v. Soucek, 130 Okla. 204, 266 P. 442; Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 259 F. 656, and Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 263 F. 935, is a salutary rule, and, under the facts, this case is well within the rule.
I think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Here the owners of the lease had manifested an unequivocal intention to keep the lease alive, and had done everything in their power to keep it alive, by mailing a check to Clark for his share of the delay rentals some 27 days before it was due, but through oversight, mistake, or inadvertence of a clerk, the letter containing the check was directed to the wrong depository bank, and the error was not discovered by the lessees until about March 14th, some 52 or 53 days after the due date.
It is established by the facts in this case that there was no bad faith on the part of the lessees in connection with the unfortunate oversight, mistake or inadvertence of the clerk; it was just one of those deplorable happenings not uncommon or unusual to fallible man.
The majority opinion herein reverses the trial court and holds that the lease was terminated on the ground that the failure to pay in time was because of the mistake of the lessee, or its agent. The opinion entirely overlooks what is said in Brazell v. Soucek, supra. Therein it is said:
“There undoubtedly was some honest mistake on part of either the defendant or the cashier of the bank, and in either event (my emphasis) the lease should not be canceled because of this mistake. We think the judgment of the trial court is against the clear weight of the evidence.”
Moreover, in 19 Am. Jur., Equity, §123, it is said:
“In the administration of remedies, an equity court is not bound by the *503strict or rigid rules of the common law; on the contrary, the court adapts _ its relief and molds its decrees to satisfy the requirements of the case and _ to conserve the equities of the parties litigant. The court has such plenary power since its purpose is the accomplishment of justice amid all the vicissitudes and intricacies of life.”
I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that GIBSON and HALLEY, JJ., concur in this dissent.