Commonwealth Oil Co. v. Neosho Oil, Gas & Refining Co.

Citations

• 106 Kan. 723
• 189 P. 966
• 1920 Kan. LEXIS 641

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Sale of Oil Leases — Fraudulent Representations by Seller — Action by Purchaser to Cancel Contract — Amendment of Pleadings — Abuse of Judicial Discretion. To answers containing- allegations of new matter as a basis for affirmative relief, replies were filed denying every material allegation contained in the answers, “except such as are consistent with the allegations of the plaintiff’s amended petition.” At the trial evidence was introduced in support of the answers. After submission, but before decision of the cause, leave to amend the replies, to conform to the theory on which the case was tried, by making them general instead of qualified denials, was asked, and refused. The court returned findings of fact based on the pleadings and the evidence. One of them was that the affirmative allegations of the answers were true, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The finding indicated was not sustained by the evidence. Held, refusal of permission to amend and return of the finding constituted abuse of judicial discretion.</p> <p>2. Same The petition prayed for cancellation of a contract to purchase oil and gas leases, on the ground of fraud. The answers of the sellers prayed for specific performance. Held, although the plaintiff failed to establish the specific ground for cancellation pleaded, the defendants praying specific performance were not entitled to equitable relief unless they had already performed what the contract required of them, or unless they were able and willing and offered to do so.</p>