Court Opinion

ID: 9457860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:35:12.071215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:31.967454
License: Public Domain

BELL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfullly dissent. At bottom, the court is permitting a jury to consider a claim for damages that was clearly embraced in a release. This is done on the basis of testimony of plaintiff, the import of which seems to me to be misapprehended. Using this testimony as a premise, the court then converts it into a cause of action on the theory that it described a separate agreement, and also a misrepresentation amounting to legal fraud.
It must be remembered that the release covered all past and future damages but plaintiff wished to save and remove his corn crop. The testimony in question (footnote 3 of the majority opinion), *909points definitely to this wish on the part of plaintiff and to nothing else:
(App. 76) “Q. At the time those papers were produced, had you all already agreed on the ten thousand and the fifteen thousand or not? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. You had? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Had there been anything said about a release, or about damages by anybody prior to those papers being produced? A. No, sir.
“Q. And what was said when the papers were produced? A. Well, when they handed me these papers, I saw this releasement.
“Q. Releasement? A. Yes, sir.
"Q. O. K. A. And asked him to explain that to me, and he did explain it.
* * *■ *
(App. 77) “Q. Ultimately that evening those papers were signed; is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. At what stage did you say something about the corn crop? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. When was that, before or after those papers were signed ? A. Before the papers were signed.
“Q. What brought that subject up? A. I had a field planted in corn on my mother’s property.
“Q. At what stage did you tell them about that insofar as the signing of these papers was concerned? You said you saw one of them was a releasement. Was it at that time or later you told them about this corn crop you wanted to get in? A. It was at that time.
“Q. At what time ? A. When he got these papers out, I told him I couldn’t sign them, I, would have to get my corn crop off.
“Q. And what did he say? A. He said, well, they would tend to that. He said they would let me get my corn crop off. He said they hadn’t been in my field and wouldn’t go in there, and I could go ahead and get my corn in or they would notify me. (Emphasis added)
“Q. Or they would what? A. Or they would notify me if they had to go in before September 1st on this construction.”
At another place in the record (App. 33, 34), plaintiff related the conversation regarding the corn crop and said that he was promised that he would be notified before Plantation went into the field. Again, this testimony pertained only to removing the corn crop. Plantation did not disturb the corn crop and no claim is made for the corn.
At this point, the letter agreement concerning the removal of the corn crop was executed. This was the only variance of the release. As I understand the matter, the majority does not contend otherwise. Rather, the premise is that a separate agreement existed by virtue of the testimony that “. . . He said they hadn’t been in my field and wouldn’t go in there, . . . . ”, supra.
The testimony that Plantation would not go into the field, in my view, is tied to giving notice to plaintiff so that he could remove his corn. This is reinforced by the letter received at the time to allow the removal of the corn or to pay damages for it.
The damages now claimed are of the type which were covered in the release:
“ . . . this shall be deemed to be and is a complete discharge and satisfaction of the obligation of said Company to pay damages which may be occasioned by the construction of said line, and of the promise to pay such damages contained in the right of way easement grant and amendment this day executed . . . ” App. 173
This quoted language ties to the right of way grant which contained the following provision:
“ . . . Grantee shall pay for all damages to crops, fences and timber that may be suffered by Grantor(s) by reason of the exercise by Grantee of any of the rights and privileges hereby granted, but after the first of *910said pipe lines has been laid Grantee shall not be liable for damages caused by keeping said right aof way clear of trees, undergrowth and other obstructions in the course of the maintenance and operation of its pipe line system and appurtenances,” App. 178
The oral representation now asserted is not such a separate agreement under the cases cited by the majority as to avoid the parol evidence rule. Certainly, taken in context, it cannot amount to a misrepresentation of material facts tantamount to fraud under Alabama decisions.
I think that the district court properly directed a verdict for Plantation.