Opinion
No. 22674
February 20, 1934.
(Syllabus.)
1. Contracts — Transaction Induced by One in Confidential Relation — Presumptions and Burden of Proof as to Validity.
Where the parties stand in the relationship of trust and confidence and the party in whom the confidence is reposed obtains an apparent advantage over the other in a transaction between them, such transaction is presumed to be void, and the burden of proof is upon the party who seeks to support it to show by clear proof that he has taken no advantage of his influence and that the transaction is fair and conscionable.
2. Same — Person Abusing Confidence not Permitted to Retain Advantage Obtained.
Whenever two persons stand in such a relation that, while it continues, confidence is necessarily reposed by one, and the influence which naturally grows out of that confidence is possessed by the other, and this confidence is abused, or the influence is exerted to obtain an advantage at the expense of the confiding party, the person so availing himself of his position will not be permitted to retain the advantage, although the transaction could not have been impeached if no such confidential relationship had existed.
3. Equity — "Laches" — Whether Claim Barred by Laches as Question of Fact.
The question of whether a claim is barred by laches must be determined by the facts and circumstances in each case and according to right and justice. Laches' legal significance is not mere delay, but a delay that works a disadvantage to another.
4. Appeal and Error — Review of Equity Case — Sufficiency of Evidence.
In an action of purely equitable cognizance, this court, upon an appeal, will review and weigh the evidence, but the findings and judgment of the trial court will not be reversed unless found to be against the clear weight of the evidence.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Tom G. Chambers, Judge.
Action by Ella Moore against Jacob F. Moore and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Clarence Mills, for plaintiffs in error.
W.R. Withington, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county, Okla., in favor of the plaintiff in the action.
The judgment was that the defendants convey to the plaintiff a one-sixteenth interest in the land involved in the action and one-sixteenth of the proceeds of the sale of an oil and gas lease thereon, less the amount paid by the defendants to the plaintiff for the land with interest thereon and less one-sixteenth of the reasonable expense incurred in leasing the land for oil and gas.
On appeal it is contended that the judgment is contrary to the law and contrary to the evidence.
The evidence is sufficient to show the existence of such a confidential relationship between the parties as to require a full disclosure of the facts, and such a failure of the defendants to disclose the facts to the plaintiff as to warrant the judgment rendered. Since the judgment is not against the clear weight of the evidence, it will not be disturbed by this court. Larkin v. Talley, 129 Okla. 58, 263 P. 145.
There was no such delay in bringing the action as to amount to "laches." Kirkpatrick v. Baker et al., 135 Okla. 142, 276 P. 193. The judgment is not contrary to the law which authorizes a declaration of a trust in land obtained under the circumstances shown by the record in this case. McDaniel v. Schroeder, 128 Okla. 91, 261 P. 224.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
RILEY, C. J., CULLISON, V. C. J., and OSBORN and BUSBY, JJ., concur.