Hauck v. Crawford

62 N.W.2d 92 (1953)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a farmer owning and operating a farm in South Dakota. P is 44 years old, has an 8th-grade education, married, and has a family. His farm consists of two sections of land which he purchased at three different times. P was approached by three men who discussed leasing P's land for oil and gas. Crawford (D) was the principal spokesman. After some discussion, D offered 25 [cents] an acre for a lease. P agreed, and one of the men apparently prepared the necessary papers on a typewriter while sitting in the back seat of the car. When the papers were prepared, they were clamped to a board or pad and presented to plaintiff while in the car for signing. Printed forms were used which contained much fine print. The man who prepared the papers indicated where P should sign, and after signing in one place, partially turned the signed sheet and asked P to sign again, stating that this second sheet was a part of the lease. P testified that no mention was ever made of a mineral deed and to this extent is corroborated by D who in response to the question, 'Did you ever describe to Mr. Hauck one of the instruments as a mineral deed?', answered, 'No, sir.' Separate instruments were required for the land in each state. P never received a copy of any of the instruments he signed. P signed a mineral deed conveying one-half the minerals in his land to D. D then recorded and conveyed those mineral rights to White and Duncan (Ds) in Texas. P brought an action to quiet title to cancel the mineral deed and other deeds that transferred mineral rights. The trial court found that the manner in which P's signature was obtained constituted a forgery. It canceled the deeds. It also found that White and Duncan (Ds) were BFPs. Ds appealed.