Buck v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 12 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 7945. |
| Parties | BUCK ET AL. v. SIMPSON ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In an action to quiet title to lands brought against the unknown heirs of one erroneously supposed to be dead and the unknown heirs of those from whom his right and title to said lands descended and service is attempted to be made under the provisions of section 4729, R. L. 1910, such one is not a party to said action, and the court trying said action acquired no jurisdiction of him by such attempted service.
A judgment in an action to quiet title does not affect or impair the rights of one who was not a party to said action either in person or through his privies, and such judgment binds said person in no degree and constitutes no bar against him.
An application having been made under provisions of section 9 Act Cong. May 27, 1908, c. 199, 35 Stat. 315, to the county court, having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of a deceased Choctaw Indian, to approve a deed by a full-blood Choctaw Indian heir of such decedent, which deed purported to grant all the estate of such Indian heir in and to the lands described therein, the county court made findings of fact and made an order approving said deed. Said court in its findings erroneously found that such Indian heir had only a life estate in said lands. In an action by an heir of such Indian heir to recover his interest in the remainder of said lands after the death of said Indian heir, held, that the approval by the county court of said deed gave it validity and effect, and it conveyed to the grantee named therein all the estate of such Indian heir in said lands, and, the action of the county court in approving said deed not being judicial, that the findings made by the court form no part of the order of approval and may be treated as surplusage.
An allotment of a deceased member of the Choctaw Tribe, dying without issue, intestate, before statehood, whose father and mother were full-blood members of his tribe, ascends to the father and his heirs and the mother and her heirs; and, the mother of said allottee having died before him, said deceased allottee leaving surviving him, as his sole heirs, his father and a brother, such father and brother succeed to his allotment in equal shares.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court, Grady County; Cham Jones, Judge.
Action by John Simpson and others against Levi Buck and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Modified and affirmed.
Bond Melton & Melton and Riddle & Hammerly, all of Chickasha, for plaintiffs in error.
J. M Willis, of Hugo, for defendants in error.
The land here in controversy was allotted to Thomas Simpson Ketchum, a son of Isaac Simpson and Margaret Simpson, both full-blood Choctaw Indians. Thomas Simpson Ketchum died about April 10, 1905. His mother was then dead, and he left surviving him as his sole heirs at law his father and one of the plaintiffs, John Simpson, a brother. Isaac Simpson died in October, 1909, leaving surviving him a second wife, Sarah, John Simpson, and two minor children, Lena Simpson and Eastman Simpson. The parties will be hereinafter designated as they appeared in the court below. The plaintiff John Simpson claims title to an undivided one-half interest in said land as an heir of his brother, Thomas Simpson Ketchum, and an undivided one-ninth interest as an heir of his father, Isaac Simpson. The defendants claim title to the land in controversy through a conveyance by Isaac Simpson, duly approved by the county court of Pushmataha county on August 13, 1908, and by virtue of a judgment of the superior court of Grady county in an action brought by Levi Buck to quiet title to said lands. The plaintiffs had judgment in the court below for an undivided eleven-eighteenths interest in said lands. From the briefs and oral argument of counsel for the respective parties there are but two questions raised in this case, the first is whether or not the plaintiffs in the instant case are barred by the judgment of the superior court in the action brought by the defendant Buck to quiet title. The second question involved the effect of the deed executed by Isaac Simpson under which defendants claim and whether said deed conveyed the whole right, title, and interest in said lands of said Isaac Simpson or only a life estate therein.
The plaintiffs alleged, and still contend, that the judgment of the superior court of Grady county quieting title to said lands in said Buck is void and of no effect as to the plaintiff John Simpson. Said action to quiet title was commenced by Levi Buck against the following defendants: Sarah Roberts, née, Simpson, the unknown heirs of Isaac Simpson, deceased, and the unknown heirs of Thomas Simpson Ketchum, deceased, the unknown heirs of John Simpson, deceased, and Wm. H. Ketchum and Lena Simpson, a minor, and Silas Cole her legal guardian. Service was had upon the unknown heirs of Isaac Simpson, deceased, the unknown heirs of John Simpson, deceased, and the unknown heirs of Thomas Simpson Ketchum, deceased, and some of the other defendants by publication. The court below held the judgment in this case to be void as to John Simpson, and it is contended by the defendants that therein the trial court erred.
It is argued by counsel for defendants that, the trial court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and having adjudged that it had jurisdiction of the parties to the action, such judgment is not void for want of jurisdiction, and cannot be collaterally attacked. Defendants contend that this is a collateral attack upon said judgment, and that said judgment, not being void, is a bar to recovery by plaintiffs in the instant case. We are unable to agree with this contention of the defendants. The defendants in the action in the superior court obtained service under section 4729, R. L. 1910, which is as follows:
At the time of the institution of said action defendants were laboring under the mistaken belief that the plaintiff John Simpson was dead, and undertook to proceed against his unknown heirs as well as the heirs of Isaac Simpson, his father, and Thomas Simpson Ketchum, his brother. John Simpson was not a party to the action in the superior court in any way. He was not named as a defendant, nor was he included in the description of any of the defendants sought to be served therein as unknown heirs. John Simpson's interest in the land in controversy came to him by inheritance from his brother, Thomas Simpson Ketchum, deceased, through his mother, Margaret Simpson, and by inheritance from his father, Isaac Simpson. He was in privity of estate with these three, and, if they or any of them had been barred of their estate in these lands before descent cast upon John Simpson, he would have been barred to the same extent as they. But none of his privies were parties to this action to quiet title. The action and judgment ran only against the unknown heirs of three of them and against certain known heirs with whom plaintiff was not in privity.
It is urged by counsel for defendants that, in bringing into court the unknown heirs of Thomas Simpson Ketchum and of Isaac Simpson, the plaintiff was brought into court, and cannot now collaterally attack the judgment of the court because of any irregularities therein. This argument is ingenious, but it will not stand the test of an examination of the statute under which the plaintiff sought to get service upon the defendants in the superior court. The section of the statutes above quoted authorizes service by publication upon the heirs of deceased persons whose names and residences are unknown to the plaintiff. The name of John Simpson was not unknown to the plaintiff, nor was it unknown to the plaintiff that he was one of the heirs of Thomas Simpson Ketchum and Isaac Simpson. The fact that John Simpson was not unknown to the plaintiff in that action appears upon the record of the judgment in the superior court. As has been said, it was erroneously supposed that John Simpson was dead, and therefore he was not made a party to the case in the superior court, but his unknown heirs were named as defendants. John Simpson or any one to whom he was privy not being a party before the court rendering judgment quieting title to the lands in plaintiff Buck, the judgment of the court could have no binding effect upon him; nor does the fact that the superior court adjudged that it had jurisdiction of the parties to that action render the judgment one against John Simpson, because the court could not adjudge that it had acquired jurisdiction of one who was not a party to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial