Hauck v. Crawford
South Dakota Supreme Court
62 N.W.2d 92 (1953)
- Written by Melanie Moultry, JD
Facts
Hauck (plaintiff), a farmer with an eighth-grade education, owned a large farm. D.W. Crawford (defendant) and two other men approached Hauck to discuss the lease of Hauck’s farm for oil and gas operations. Hauck agreed to lease his property. One of the men prepared the paperwork, told Hauck where to sign, and indicated that Hauck was signing a lease. Although there was no discussion of a mineral deed, Hauck unknowingly signed a deed that conveyed one-half of the minerals on his property to Crawford. Crawford subsequently granted mineral rights to White and Duncan (defendants). Hauck brought an action to quiet title, in order to cancel the mineral deed and other deeds that transferred mineral rights. The trial court cancelled the deeds, finding that the manner in which Hauck’s signature was obtained constituted a forgery. The trial court also found that White and Duncan were bona fide purchasers for value, without making a finding regarding their knowledge of Crawford’s fraud. Crawford, White, and Duncan appealed, claiming that Hauck should not prevail, because he was an intelligent farmer who operated a large farm and was negligent in signing the mineral deed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rudolph, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
