Britton v. Gannon
| Decision Date | 03 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 36249,36249 |
| Citation | 55 A.L.R.2d 667,285 P.2d 407 |
| Parties | , 1955 OK 135 W. R. BRITTON, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mark GANNON, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A state court is not required to recognize the judgment of a court of another state, territory, or country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, where the court rendering the judgment was without jurisdiction or where the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.
2. In action on judgment of court of another state, defendant may impeach the judgment on allegations of fraud in procuring it, extrinsic to the merits of the cause.
Appeal from the District Court of Pontotoc County; John Boyce McKeel, Judge.
Action on judgment of Illinois court. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Busby, Stanfield, Busby & Deaton, by David Busby, Ada, for plaintiff in error.
McArthur & Orton, by C. L. McArthur, Ada, for defendant in error.
Mark Gannon brought this action in the District Court of Pontotoc County against W. R. Britton on a foreign judgment rendered in favor of said Gannon against Britton in the Circuit Court of Fayette County, Illinois, in the sum of $18,000.
Defendant filed answer consisting of a general denial and allegations to the effect that Mark Gannon was only a nominal party; that the real party in interest was Roy or 'Spike' Gannon, brother of Mark Gannon; that said 'Spike' Gannon had advised defendant that he was filing suit to recover certain personal property owned by him and defendant which had been sold pursuant to mortgage foreclosure proceedings and that Britton was a necessary defendant, but that no judgment would be taken against him, and relying on these representations, although served with summons, Britton made no effort to defend such suit and did not know that judgment had been taken against him until the instant suit was filed. Upon motion of plaintiff and over the objections and exceptions of defendant all allegations of defendant's answer except his general denial were stricken.
When the case came on for trial defendant moved for a jury trial, which motion was overruled and exceptions allowed. Plaintiff offered in evidence authenticated copies of the alias request for summons, the summons and return thereon showing personal service on Britton, affidavit as to military service, motion for leave to file amended complaint, affidavit of mailing, notice, the amended complaint with exhibits thereto, including authenticated copy of the judgment in the Illinois case and rested. Defendant offered evidence, which was objected to by plaintiff and objection sustained, to the effect that one Roy 'Spike' Gannon about July 10, 1946, called defendant offering to purchase a one-third interest in Britton's drilling business; that defendant Britton owned about $65,000 worth of drilling equipment upon which there was a $20,000 mortgage; that Gannon offered to pay $15,000 for a one-third interest, to which Britton agreed; that Gannon paid Britton $13,000 in cash, saying he did not want any record made of the transaction as he had income tax troubles; that it was agreed that Gannon would share one-third of the profits, if any, made by use of the drilling equipment, which usually ran about $3,000 per well; that it was agreed that the remaining $2,000 of the purchase price of the one-third interest would be deducted from Gannon's share of the profits; that later 'Spike' Gannon asked Britton to sign a bill of sale putting the one-third interest in his brother's name, Mark Gannon (plaintiff here); that actually Mark Gannon never had any interest in the business but 'Spike' Gannon at all times was a silent partner in the business; that five wells were drilled after this partnership was formed, but three were dry and the other two were not profitable, so that the partnership became unable to pay the installments on the mortgage and the mortgage on the rig and equipment were foreclosed; that after the rig and equipment were sold at public auction in the foreclosure proceedings in January, 1947, 'Spike' Gannon and his attorney came to Britton in Illinois and told Britton that because of certain irregularities in the foreclosure proceedings they might be able to get a portion of the equipment back; that to do this it was necessary to file suit, making Britton a party, but so far as Britton was concerned it was a friendly suit and Britton would not be sued for any money and Britton need not worry about any judgment; that they needed Britton's cooperation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stearns v. Stearns
...v. Premier Photo Service, Inc., 173 S.E.2d 383, 388 (W.Va.1970); Lee v. Carroll, 146 So.2d 242, 243 (La.App.1962); Britton v. Gannon, 285 P.2d 407, 409 (Okl.1955); Levin v. Gladstein, 142 N.C. 482, 55 S.E. 371 (1906); Zelek v. Brosseau, 47 N.J.Super. 521, 136 A.2d 416, 421 (1957); Chase v. ......
-
Associated Engineers & Contractors, Inc. v. State
...extrinsic fraud is said to include "acts preventing the presence at the trial of material witnesses". To the same effect is Britton v. Gannon, 285 P.2d 407 (Okl.1955) and Annot.: Secreting witness or other conduct preventing summoning or appearance of witness as ground for relief from judgm......
-
Reeves Royalty Co., Ltd. v. ANB Pump Truck Service
...of Judgments Act and the Act was not intended to alter this rule. Fletcher v. Rapp, 1 S & M 374 (1843). In Britton v. Gannon, 285 P.2d 407 (Okla.1955), 55 A.L.R.2d 667, the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed a defense to a foreign judgment similar to that raised by Reeves. Gannon had filed su......
-
Oldham v. McRoberts
...which the judgment was obtained. (Burbrooke Mfg. Co. v. St. George Textile Corp., 283 App.Div. 640, 129 N.Y.S.2d 588; Britton v. Gannon, Okl., 285 P.2d 407, 55 A.L.R.2d 667, cert. den. 350 U.S. 886, 76 S.Ct. 140, 100 L.Ed. 781; Second Nat. Bank of Philadelphia v. Thompson, 141 N.J.Eq. 188, ......