Court Opinion

ID: 9852622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:33:44.931381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:30.789464
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
In addition to the fact that the “grant option” was void and unenforceable as not being properly executed by the corporation for the reason that it was contrary to the bylaws of the corporation and SDCL 47-5-25, the “grant option”
(a) was unenforceable because it failed for want of consideration as Elwin Pearey received the $1,000 and the corporation did not; Pearey never tendered the money to the corporation and saw to it that the check was made out to him personally and he then converted the $1,000 to his own use; the corporation received no benefit whatsoever from the “grant option”;
*105(b) was unenforceable and could give no actual notice of rights claimed by filing with the Stanley County Register of Deeds because it contained a corporate acknowledgment which was defective on its face; SDCL 18-5-9 provides for the format of a certificate of corporate acknowledgment. Pearey’s acknowledgment does not reflect that Pearey was authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of the corporation as required by SDCL 18-5-9; furthermore, the acknowledgment was taken and executed by Pearey, he being the party who was the direct beneficiary of the agreement, all as being directly contrary to SDCL 18-1-7; parties to an instrument are generally prohibited from taking the acknowledgment. Nat’l Bank of Commerce Trust v. Rhodes, 207 Neb. 44, 295 N.W.2d 711 (1980).
Thus, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court and in doing so, note that there were extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not clearly erroneous. In re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 181 N.W.2d 455 (1970).