Court Opinion

ID: 9741649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:00:07.25285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.284208
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
BURKE, Judge.
The respondent has filed a petition for rehearing in this case. He founds his petition upon a contention that neither the oil and gas lease from McKenzie County to Dorough or Dorough’s assignment of the lease to the Texas Company contains the address of the grantee; that such instruments were not entitled to he placed on record and therefore the recording thereof did not constitute notice to subsequent purchasers.
In the lease to Dorough the grantee is described as Thomas G. Dorough whose post office address is Denver, Colorado. It is urged that, in a city as large as Denver, a post office address which names merely the city and state is insufficient. We do not agree. For all the record shows it might have been impossible for Dorough to give a more definite address, and he may have kept the postmaster at Denver informed of a constantly changing forwarding address. In any event Denver, Colorado, was the address of the post office from which he received his mail when he was home. It was his post office address. See In re Gooder’s Estate, 69 S.D. 242, 9 N.W. 2d 143, wherein City of Omaha, County of Douglas, State of Nebraska was held to be a sufficient post office address, and In re Barrett’s Estate, 48 S.D. 302, 204 N.W. 167, wherein Sioux Falls, Minnehaha County, S. D., was held to be sufficient.
Since Dorough’s lease was properly recorded, it was notice of the outstanding leasehold interest to all subsequent purchasers and it is immaterial whether the Texas Company’s assignment was entitled to record in so far as grants from persons other than Dorough are concerned.
Two other petitions for rehearing were also filed. One of’ these was filed on behalf of the defendants, Esther V. and Lathrop W. Hull. The other was filed by persons who seek to be heard as amici curiae. These additional petitions present no new light upon questions which were at issue in this case.
The petitions for rehearing are therefore denied.
SATHRE, C. J., and MORRIS, J., concur.