Bridges v. Rea
| Decision Date | 16 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 6228 |
| Citation | 64 Okla. 115,1916 OK 547,166 P. 416 |
| Parties | BRIDGES v. REA et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Indians--Indian Lands--Sale of Allotment--Evidence--Fraud.
In a suit by a minor in ejectment and to set aside for fraud in their procurement certain proceedings of the probate court resulting in the sale of her allotment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation and to clear her title thereto, evidence examined, and held sufficient to justify the court in setting aside the same for fraud, and that said deed is void.
2. Same -- Cancellation of Sale Contract--Actions--Condition Precedent.
Assuming that plaintiff had no right to sue to rescind the sale without restoring the consideration, her offer so to do in her petition, wherein she "tenders back to the said defendant W. C. Rea the drug stock taken in exchange by her guardian for her lands," was all that the law required of her. But the deed being void, she was not required to return the consideration as a condition precedent to relief in equity; but aside from this, the absence of a showing that, at the time she brought the suit or the case was tried, she had in her possession any of the consideration received for the land, was sufficient reason for not requiring her so to do.
3. Same--Cloud on Title--Invalid Mortgage.
Where the proceedings for the sale of land, together with the deed issued pursuant thereto, are set aside for fraud in their procurement, and, pending the suit, the grantee in the deed set aside executes a mortgage upon the land described in the deed, and the mortgagee is made a party defendant, held, that the court erred in refusing to set aside both deed and mortgage and to clear plaintiff's title of them both.
Error from District Court, Johnston County; Robert M. Rainey, Judge.
Action by Ida L. Bridges, a minor, by her next friend, W. W. Wells, against W. C. Rea and another. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.
C. F. Green, F. P. Lieuallen, W. F. Schulte, and Newman & Lawrence, for plaintiff in error.
E. S. Kerr and J. F. McKeel, for defendants in error.
¶1 On June 8, 1912, in the district court of Johnston county, plaintiff in error, Ida L. Bridges, a minor, by her father, W. W. Wells, as next friend, sued W. C. Rea and the Farmers' & Merchants' National Bank of Roff, defendants in error, in ejectment and to set aside for fraud in their procurement certain proceedings of the probate court of that county, resulting in the sale of 220 acres of land, described in the petition as her allotment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, and to clear her title thereto. The bank was made a party defendant by supplemental petition, which alleged, in substance, that the bank, pendente lite, had taken a mortgage on the lands from Rea for $ 6,297, which was asked to be canceled and also set aside. After answer filed, in effect a general denial and a plea by the bank that it was an innocent incumbrancer for value, issues were joined by reply. There was trial to the court and judgment:
"That if the plaintiff, Ida L. Bridges, shall, within six months from this date, pay to the defendant Farmers' & Merchants' National Bank of Roff, Okla., the sum of $ 5,000, with 6 per cent. interest thereon from this date until paid, then and in that event, the said deed of the said guardian, J. E. Bridges, and the said mortgage of said W. C. Rea be, and the same shall thereby and by the payment of said sum of money, be wholly canceled, vacated, discharged, and held for naught, and it is ordered that a certified copy of this judgment, showing the satisfaction hereof and the payment of said amount, be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Johnston county, Okla., and the same, when recorded, shall operate to revest in the plaintiff absolute, complete, and perfect title in and to the premises above described; it is further ordered that the defendants shall be and remain in possession of said premises until the further order of court."
¶2 Both plaintiff and defendants bring the case here.
¶3 The court was right when he held the proceedings in question void for fraud in their procurement. On this point the evidence discloses that a short time prior to the commencement of the proceedings assailed, plaintiff was the owner of the land in question, worth about $ 10,000, and lived in Roff with her father. The defendant Rea also lived in Roff and was the owner of a stock of drugs of doubtful value which he was anxious to trade for plaintiff's land. While standing on the street one day in the company of a young man named O. W. Bridges, plaintiff passed. Observing her, Rea said to Bridges:
¶4 --all of which was agreeable to Bridges, who thereafter met and married her. After their marriage, the young couple went to live with his father, J. E. Bridges, at which time Rea approached the father and proposed a trade of the land for his stock of drugs; and to that end it was agreed between them that the father would qualify as guardian of plaintiff and consummate the deal through the probate court. Accordingly Rea had him appointed as such, and went on his bond with R. A. Rea, his brother, and J. C. Rea, his father, as sureties, after which the guardian petitioned the probate court for a sale of the land, with the understanding with Rea that he would bid in the land and give his stock of drugs and fixtures in exchange therefor; and the proceedings were carried to a point where the sale of the land was about to be made when it was interfered with, to some extent, by the appearance upon the scene of an agent representing the commissioner of charities and corrections, who objected thereto and informed Bridges, the guardian, after acquainting himself with all the facts, that he ought to be in the penitentiary. His objections, however, were shortly thereafter overcome when Rea and the guardian consulted over the matter at Ada and placed $ 50 in the hands of a mutual friend named Richardson to give to the agent, which he did not get, or so he states, whereupon the agent disappeared and the sale "went through"; the order of court directing the guardian to sell the land at private sale to the highest bidder for cash. But before it went through, the guardian gave a sale bond, the sureties on which were notoriously insolvent, and Rea, together with an obliging friend, in order, he told the friend, to show by inventory that his stock was worth enough to pay for the land, "went through" it and marked it up and had an inventory taken showing the stock and fixtures to be worth $ 10,000 or more. The evidence further discloses that prior to the sale all parties concerned, except plaintiff, went to the probate judge, and, they say, told him all about the arrangement to trade the stock and fixtures for the land, to all of which he seems to have assented, and the order of sale was made.
¶5 At the sale, Rea, pursuant to the prior understanding with the guardian, bid $ 10,000 cash for the land, and the same was sold to him for that amount. Thereafter the guardian reported the sale to the court as a cash sale, and the same, as such, was approved, the order of sale reciting that the land was "sold to W. C. Rea upon the following terms, to wit: For the sum of $ 10,000, payable as follows: Cash on delivery of deed and abstract showing title." Shortly thereafter, although the purchase money was never paid, the guardian represented to the court by petition that it had been, and that he had the fund on hand to invest for the minor, whereupon the court entered an order, pursuant to the prior understanding between the guardian, Rea, and the judge, authorizing him so to do, in Rea's stock and fixtures, which he afterwards did by delivering to Rea a deed to the land and taking over his stock, allowing him therefor a credit on the purchase price of the land of $ 6,463.40, shown by the evidence to have been worth about $ 5,000, and a further credit of $ 4,546.60 for the fixtures, shown by the evidence to have been worth less than half that amount at the time of the sale; Rea taking back from him a mortgage on the stock and fixtures to secure the payment of $ 1,685.80. After that, Bridges took possession of the store containing the stock and fixtures, and conducted the business as guardian of plaintiff, and continued so to do for a short time, after which he made his final report to the court, in which he charged himself, among other things, with the stock of drugs and fixtures, and was discharged as guardian and the property turned over to plaintiff in settlement with the guardian. It is perhaps unnecessary to cite authorities in support of the assertion that the entire proceedings, including the guardian's deed issued pursuant thereto, were void as a fraud, not only upon the minor, but upon the court. However, we cite a few.
¶6 Tong v. Marvin, 26 Mich. 35, was a suit to set aside for fraud certain proceedings in the probate court, by means of which the complainant, who was an infant, had been divested of her title to certain of her lands. She complained that one Daniel Marvin, the ancestor of defendants, had procured his son, Lucius, to be appointed as her guardian, with the fraudulent intent to obtain for himself the title to her lands, and which he accomplished by means of a sale thereof, by order of the court. The facts were that the minor owed no debts in the state, but the land in controversy was incumbered by a mortgage which was in process of foreclosure. Whereupon Daniel Marvin advanced the money to his son to enable him as guardian to redeem therefrom and thereby furnish the excuse for an application to the probate court for a license to sell the lands. At the sale said Marvin became the purchaser; the sale realizing nothing for complainant over and...
To continue reading
Request your trial