Clint

I concur in the judgment, but for reasons that will require a somewhat extended explanation.

The suit was brought to cancel or annul a deed, or document purporting to be a deed, of date December 21, 1900 (designated in the record as Exhibit “A”), between Martin Clint and others, of the first part, and the Eureka Crude Oil Company, an Arizona corporation, of the second part. The document is not signed by three of the parties named as grantors, but several months after the transactions involved in this case a similar deed was executed by them.

The allegations of the complaint show a flagrant case of fraud perpetrated on the plaintiffs by the defendant through its secretary and agent, by means of which the plaintiff’s signature to the instrument and its possession without delivery were obtained from the plaintiffs by the defendant; and these allegations are, in effect, found to be true by the court. There is, indeed, a finding by the court in general terms that the deed was delivered; but it is found specifically that the deed was placed by the plaintiffs “in the hands of (the defendant’s agent, Kloeckner), with oral instructions that he should show the same to their . . . attorney…

This is an action to cancel a deed alleged to have been obtained from plaintiff, Martin Clint and others, by false and fraudulent representations and without delivery. On a trial without a jury, the findings and judgment were in defendant’s favor; The appeal is by plaintiffs from the judgment and an order denying a new trial.

It is reasonably clear from the evidence that the eighteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shares of stock in the defendant corporation were agreed to be given and were in fact transferred as a consideration for the deed sought to be canceled herein, and that this was a sufficient consideration to uphold such deed. It is immaterial that the transfer of this stock may have also constituted the agreed consideration for a lease of the same property mentioned in the deed. We find nothing in the.evidence to warrant the theory that two lots of stock of eighteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shares each were ever agreed to be delivered to plaintiff Clint. The evidence shows that before any of this stock was delivered to Clint the previous lease was, in effect, canceled by an agreement to convey the same, and also the property leased to the defendant. This…