Littlejohn v. County Line Creamery Co.

Citations

• 14 S.D. 312
• 85 N.W. 588
• 1901 S.D. LEXIS 15

Syllabus

<p>1. Finding of fact on conflicting testimony will not be disturbed unless clearly against tbe preponderance of tbe evidence.</p> <p>2. Plaintiff delivered to the promoters of the defendant corporation an acre of ground, valued at $12 for a creamery site, and tbe deed provided that if defendant should discontinue the operation of the creamery at any time during the proper season for conducting the same “the above described premises shall revert to plaintiff, together with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances there- . unto belonging. There was testimony that none of the promoters knew of the condition in the deed. Held, that a finding that the written contract did not express the agreement of the parties was sustained by the evidence, since it was unreasonable that any one would risk the forfeiture of a creamery building for the use of ground worth $12.</p> <p>3. Where a deed provided that defendant’s creamery should be forfeited to the plaintiff, the owner of the ground on which it was located, in case defendant ceased to operate it during the proper season for operating the same, and defendant set up in its answer that the deed did not express the agreement of the parties, and asked to have it reformed, it was error to cancel the deed, since no such relief was asked, and it was not necessary to protect the defendant’s rights.</p>