Court Opinion

ID: 9581744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:18:12.305248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:13.325086
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
MORRIS, Judge.
The respondent points out that the agreement between Martin and the plaintiff from which we have previously quoted contains a provision that has no counterpart in the contract involved in McGee v. Heirs at Law of Samuel S. Stokes, N.D., 76 N.W.2d 145, which, it is argued, distinguishes this case and avoids the controlling effect of our decision in that case.
The provision upon which the respondent relies deals with the effect of the mineral deed and the oil and gas lease concerning which it states
“both instruments shall be.effective on the completion of having title to the above described property vested in the proper owner, Estella Carpenter Ac-cola.”
It is argued that
“this language in the agreement made the mineral deed and the gas lease ex-ecutory in character, since they were by the terms of the agreement not effective until the action to quiet title had been completed.”
The respondent’s contention runs counter to the established law of this state. The provision upon which he would rely appears in the agreement but does not appear either in the mineral deed or the lease. The lease and deed were delivered to Martin. Section 47-0907, NDRC 1943, provides :
“A grant cannot be delivered to the grantee conditionally. Delivery to him or to his agent as such is necessarily absolute and the instrument takes effect thereupon, discharged of any condition on which the delivery was made.”
In Keefe v. Fitzgerald, 69 N.D. 481, 288 N.W. 213, we said:
“If the grantor makes a manual delivery to the grantee of a deed absolute in form, intending to part with all authority and dominion over the instrument, the delivery is absolute and title passes immediately in accordance with the terms of the deed notwithstanding any intention or understanding that its operation be delayed until the happening of a contingency.”
While the agreement may have contemplated a condition precedent the instruments by which title passed contained no such condition, see Section 47-1014, NDRC 1943, and they therefore passed the present title which they purported to convey. They *524were not executory in character as the respondent contends.
The petition for rehearing' is denied.
BURKE, C. J., and JOHNSON, GRIMSON and SATHRE, JJ., concur.