Apple v. Bridgman
| Decision Date | 15 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 17212 |
| Parties | APPLE v. BRIDGMAN et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Judgment--Res Judicata--Issues Decided Between Codefendants. Upon proper pleadings raising a controversy between codefendants, a judgment or decree as between them on such issues is res adjudicata in a subsequent action, but a judgment that a grantor's conveyance as to a creditor was fraudulent does not reinvest the title in the grantor as against his grantee in the absence of adversary issues.
Sigler and Jackson, for plaintiff in error.
A. Gray Gilmer and G. A. Paul, for defendant in error.
¶1 Error is presented herein from the district court of Carter county. In the said court, T. C. Bridgman sued Byron W. Apple and her husband, S. A. Apple, and the American National Bank of Ardmore. The American National Bank disclaimed. The substantive relief prayed in the petition was against the defendant Byron W. Apple. T. C. Bridgman will be referred to as plaintiff and Byron W. Apple as defendant. Plaintiff secured a judgment on the 17th day of November, 1925, finding, adjudging, and decreeing that two certain deeds, acknowledged on December 20, 1924, by plaintiff to the American National Bank of Ardmore, and a deed by the American National Bank of Ardmore to the defendant in turn conveying to her the same property as covered by the two deeds to the bank, were each void and of no force and effect, and further decreeing that the said defendant had no right, title, interest, or estate as against the plaintiff in and to lot 4, block 375, and the east 60 feet of lot 1, block 412, according to the plat of the city of Ardmore. The judgment, however, decreed that the defendant S. A. Apple had a lien on the undivided interest of the plaintiff to the extent of $ 12,517.67. The judgment also found that the plaintiff had the right of possession to a half interest in said land, as against each and all of the defendants, subject only to the lien of the defendant S. A. Apple, and that the deeds from the said plaintiff to the American National Bank of Ardmore, as aforesaid, which are of record in book 62, page 445 of the deed records of said county, and the deed from the American National Bank to the said defendant, recorded in book 62, page 444 of the deed records of said county, should be and were canceled and held for naught. It further perpetually enjoined the defendant from ever asserting any right or claim to a half interest in said described property as against the plaintiff. Since the appeal was filed by defendant in this court, the plaintiff departed this life, and the cause has been revived in the name of his administrator, J. N. Shinholser.
¶2 There was a lawsuit prior to the instant case involving this same property, as to which more hereafter. We must point out, also, that deeds were made by the plaintiff on two different dates. Lest confusion attend our discussion, we deem it not amiss to set forth now the dates of the deeds. On the 29th day of January, 1923, the plaintiff made, executed, and delivered a warranty deed to the defendant conveying the property described above. On the 20th day of December, 1924, the plaintiff executed and acknowledged two deeds in forms quitclaim, to the American National Bank of Ardmore, one of which quitclaim deeds conveyed one of said tracts, and the other conveyed the other. In turn, the American National Bank executed a deed to the defendant covering both tracts of said land.
¶3 The two suits as to said property must be understood. At the time the first deed was made by the plaintiff to the defendant the American National Bank of Ardmore had sued the plaintiff and one R. A. Peterson, in which suit the said bank, shortly after the execution of the said first deed, secured a judgment in the sum of approximately $ 13,000. A supplemental petition in said first suit by the bank interpleaded the defendant in the instant action, and set up the deed of January 29, 1923, as fraudulent against it as defendant, and a cloud upon its attachment lien thereon. The plaintiff in the instant suit (one of the defendants in the first suit) filed a demurrer in that case to the supplemental petition, which being overruled, he pleaded no further. The defendant in the instant case filed an answer therein. It was in substance and effect in part the same as her answer in the suit at bar. It was to this effect, that the realty in question was purchased by her mother many years prior to the suit. At the time, the realty was not improved. Subsequently, defendant's mother made an agreement with the defendant that if she would furnish the money to erect the improvements now located on the respective lots, that at the death of her said mother, the said lots, with all the improvements, should become the property of the defendant. That the mother of the said defendant died in December, 1922, leaving surviving her husband, the plaintiff, and her daughter, the defendant herein, and that the first named deed of January 29, 1923, from the said plaintiff to defendant was made, executed, and delivered to carry out in good faith the agreement and understanding made with defendant's mother many years theretofore. The court, however, entered a judgment in favor of the American National Bank, sustaining its attachment upon an undivided half interest in said property, and ordered it foreclosed to satisfy the judgment so rendered as aforesaid in its favor against the said T. C. Bridgman and the said Peterson. An appeal therefrom was taken to this court, and affirmed. The case is reported in 104 Okla. 69, 231 P. page 79.
¶4 Stripped of the history of the litigation as outlined in the said opinion, it is therein stated:
"The finding of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff (the American National Bank--ours) involved a finding that the conveyance of the property in controversy was fraudulent and the important question presented by this appeal is whether there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the judgment."
¶5 It then found that there was evidence reasonably tending to support the judgment.
The judgment there appealed from, whatever may be said as to phraseology, as a matter of law went only to the extent that the conveyance was fraudulently made by Bridgman as against the American National Bank, a judgment creditor of the said Bridgman. In that suit there were no adversary pleadings between the plaintiff in the instant case and the defendant herein, who was interpleaded as defendant therein. He did not by his pleadings in that suit assert that he was the owner of the property. After the said opinion of this court in said first case, the amount of the judgment of the said American National Bank against said Bridgman was paid by defendant S. A. Apple; and about the same time the deeds of December 20, 1922, sought to be decided herein, were executed by the plaintiff, Bridgman. In June, thereafter, the instant suit was filed, in which the plaintiff in effect pleads that the said last-named deeds were secured from him through deceitful misrepresentations of the defendant S. A. Apple, acting for and on behalf of the defendant Byron W. Apple, and that said deeds were void and should be canceled, set aside, and held for naught, and that he should be decreed to be the owner of a half interest in the said described property.
¶6 The defendant in the instant case answered, in substance and effect, the same as in the previous suit of the American National Bank against her. The defendant S. A. Apple pleaded the general issue. She further pleaded, in effect, that the deed of January 29, 1923, gave her complete title to said property as against the plaintiff. Replying to this answer of the defendant, the plaintiff, Bridgman, in the instant suit pleaded that the said deed of January 29, 1923, had by the previous judgment in the case of American National Bank v. Bridgman et al. been held void and of no force and effect; and its utter invalidity had been adjudicated and defendant thereby precluded from claiming by reason of it.
¶7 The...
To continue reading
Request your trial