Abraham v. Homer

• Decision Date: 08 April 1924
• Docket Number: Case Number: 12466
• Parties: ABRAHAM et al. v. HOMER.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1924 OK 393

226 P. 45

102 Okla. 12

ABRAHAM et al. v. HOMER.

Case Number: 12466

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: April 8, 1924

Syllabus

¶0 1. Judgment--"Jurisdictional Facts."

Facts showing the service of process, facts showing that the matter involved in a suit constitutes a subject-matter consigned by law to the jurisdiction of the court, and facts showing that a particular judgment is rendered in compliance with all existing mandatory law in that regard are known as jurisdictional facts. See paragraph 5 of opinion.

2. Same--"Quasi Jurisdictional Facts" -- Collateral Attack.

Facts which are not jurisdictional facts, and which do not constitute a part of the cause of action, but which are necessary to set the judicial wheels in motion and to entitle the court to proceed with the exercise of admitted jurisdiction, are known as quasi jurisdictional facts. When those facts are adjudicated by a court possessing the three necessary elements of jurisdiction, such adjudication, in the absence of fraud, is not open to collateral attack. See paragraph 10 of opinion.

3. Same--Guardian and Ward -- Sale of Ward's Real Estate.

In the rendition by the county court of a judgment ordering the sale of a minor's real estate, facts showing the investment to be made of the proceeds of such sale are neither jurisdictional nor quasi jurisdictional facts, but relate solely to the existence of a cause of action for such sale.

4. Judgment--Collateral Attack--Scope of Inquiry.

On collateral attack against the judgment of a court of record, when fraud is absent and all necessary jurisdictional facts existed in the court rendering the judgment attacked, the court on such collateral attack has no right to inquire, determine, and adjudge as to the existence in the original action of quasi jurisdictional facts or facts constituting a cause of action, and this is true even though upon the face of such judgment itself it appears that the court in the original action had erred both in fact and in law as to the existence of such facts and the right of the parties to the relief granted. See paragraph 13 of opinion.

5. Same--Jurisdiction--Defective Pleading and Proof.

It is not material to the jurisdiction of the court that a cause of action be either pleaded or proven. Although the facts stated in a petition be not merely insufficiently or defectively pleaded, but both in form and substance wholly fail to constitute a cause of action, the court is not solely by reason thereof deprived of jurisdiction over the subject-matter or of the jurisdiction to render a judgment granting such relief as otherwise it may be within the jurisdiction of the court to render. See paragraph 21 of opinion.

6. Guardian and Ward--Sale of Real Estate--Discretion of Court.

"If, after a full examination, it appears necessary or for the benefit of the ward that his real estate or some part thereof be sold, the county court may grant an order therefor," and the determination of what facts are sufficient to constitute such necessity or make such sale beneficial to the ward is within the sound legal discretion of the county court without limitation to the causes specified in sections 1466 and 1467, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes, 1921.

Error from District Court, Creek County; Mark L. Bozarth, Judge.

Action by Emmett Homer against Fannie Abraham and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss.

Cheatham & Beaver and Everest, Vaught & Brewer, for plaintiffs in error.

R. L. Wilkinson, F. F. Betzer, and C. T. Huddleston, for defendant in error.

LYDICK, J.

1. Emmett Homer, defendant in error, brought an action in ejectment coupled with a cause of action seeking the relief of a court of equity to quiet title. Same was brought in the district court of Creek county, against Fannie Abraham, Joe Abraham, Continental Refining Company, a corporation, and K. Wasaff, as defendants, and they are the plaintiffs in error here. The parties will be referred to in this opinion according to the position they occupied in the lower court. The suit was to set aside a guardian's deed and constituted a collateral attack upon the judgment of the county court of Creek county, rendered and entered by the county court in the matter of the guardianship of Emmett Homer, a minor, and wherein the county court ordered and confirmed the sale of certain real estate within the jurisdiction of that court and constituting a part of the estate of the said minor, the sale having been made unto one Joe Abraham. The title and interest of all the defendants rested upon the validity of the said guardian's deed. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the guardian's deed was absolutely void. The defendants bring the case here on appeal by petition in error with case-made attached.

2. The guardian's petition, filed in the county court, wherein he sought and obtained the order of the county court to sell this real estate, in so far as it related to the reasons for the sale and relief sought, read as follows, to wit:

"That it is to the ward's interest that the hereinafter described portion of said real estate should be sold for the following reasons, to wit: Investment in other lands."

"Wherefore, petitioner prays the court that upon hearing had herein he be authorized to sell of said real estate at public or private sale as shall be deemed most beneficial and for the best interest of said ward."

¶1 The county court's decree for the sale of this real estate by the guardian recited, among other things, that:

"Upon due consideration of the proofs offered in said matter, the court finds that the sale of all the real estate belonging to said ward mentioned in said petition and hereinafter described, is necessary for the purpose of reinvestment in other lands, and is for the best interest of said ward."

"It is therefore adjudged and decreed by the court that the said James Miller as guardian of the estate of the above named ward be and is hereby authorized and directed to sell in one parcel or in separate parcels or subdivision as the said guardian shall judge most beneficial to said estate at private sale to the highest bidder, the following described real estate, to wit: The southwest quarter of section 2, township 15, range 9, Creek county, Okla., on the following terms, to wit: cash in hand to guardian on confirmation of sale by judge of the county court of Creek county."

¶2 Then follows therein the part of the decree which orders the sale to be advertised and an additional bond given, but no further reference is made therein to the investment of the proceeds of the sale.

3. The plaintiff admits that the guardianship proceedings of this minor were lawfully and properly pending before the county court of Creek county; that the guardian had been duly and lawfully appointed and qualified and was lawfully acting in such capacity; that the land was located in Creek county and was lawfully within the jurisdiction of the county court in these proceedings; that the court had full jurisdiction of the person of all parties interested; that the proceedings by which the land was sold and confirmed and the guardian's deed executed were had in all respects according to law, except as follows: Plaintiff claims the petition for the sale failed to state a cause of action for a sale and affirmatively upon its face showed that no cause of action existed for the sale. He also claims that the order of sale is illegal, because it orders the land sold for the purpose of reinvesting the proceeds of the sale in other lands, a purpose which he claims is not provided by law. Jurisdiction of the county court over the person is admitted. No fraud is charged or relied upon. It is admitted and the court holds that the attack here made upon the judgment of the county court is a collateral attack. The question necessary to be considered here is one of law, viz., a determination of the jurisdiction of the county court to render the particular judgment ordering; the sale of the land in controversy.

4. What are jurisdictional facts, and do facts showing the investment to be made of the proceeds of a sale of a minor's real estate constitute jurisdictional facts?

5. Jurisdiction over the person, jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and jurisdiction to render the particular judgment are three separate elements of the jurisdiction of a court. Each element of jurisdiction is dependent upon both law and fact. Facts showing the service of process in time, form and manner sufficient to satisfy the requirements of mandatory statutes in that regard are essential to jurisdiction over the person. Facts showing that the matter involved in a suit constitutes a subject-matter consigned by law to the jurisdiction of that court are essential to jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit. Facts showing that a particular judgment is rendered in compliance with all existing mandatory law in that regard are essential to jurisdiction to render particular judgment. All such facts are known as jurisdictional facts. See Morgan v. Karcher et al., 81 Okla. 210, 197 P. 433; Milton Burris et al. v. Straughn et al., vol. 23, Appellate Court Reporter, page 64, decided July 10, 1923 (pending on rehearing); Freeman on Judgments, sec. 120. See Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co., 147 U.S. 165, 37 L. Ed. 123; United States v. Morse, 218 U.S. 493, 31 S. Ct. 37, 54 L. Ed. 1123, 21 Ann. Cas. 782; Grignon's Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. 319, 11 L. Ed. 283; Mohr v. Manierre, 101 U.S. 417, 25 L. Ed. 1052.

6. We submit the following illustrations and examples of jurisdictional facts. It is necessary that the facts show that process has been served within the state upon the defendant in order to give the court jurisdiction over the person. It is necessary for the facts to show the seizure and possession of the res within the state in a proceeding in rem. The facts must show publication in accordance with

...