Burton v. Colley
| Decision Date | 29 September 1925 |
| Docket Number | 14841. |
| Citation | 242 P. 185,113 Okla. 265,1925 OK 768 |
| Parties | BURTON v. COLLEY et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The United States court for the Southern district of the Indian Territory had authority to appoint a guardian or curator of the estate of a minor located in that district, although the domicile of the minor was not within such district.
Where a guardian or curator of the estate of a minor had been duly appointed by the United States court for the Southern district of the Indian Territory at Marietta, and such guardianship proceeding was pending at the time of the admission of the state into the Union, such proceeding was by section 19 of the Enabling Act (Act of Congress of June 16 1906, 34 Stat. 277) and section 23 of the Schedule of the Constitution, transferred to the county court of Love county. The jurisdiction thus conferred upon such court was coextensive with the state, and, so long as such proceeding was pending therein, the jurisdiction of the county court of every other county to appoint a guardian for such minor was excluded.
Where a county court of one county had acquired jurisdiction of the guardianship of a minor, as the successor of the United States court for the Southern district of the Indian Territory, and subsequently the county court of another county, the domicile of the minor, made an order appointing another guardian for said minor, and ordered his real estate sold, and said real estate was sold to a purchaser in good faith, who relied upon the record of such court, such sale cannot be collaterally attacked on the ground of the exclusive jurisdiction of the first court, when nothing appears on the face of the record of the second court showing that the court acted without jurisdiction.
Appeal from District Court, Love County; Asa E. Walden, Judge.
Action by Allie Daney Burton in ejectment against Winnie Colley executrix of the estate of J. C. Colley, deceased, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Adams & Orr, of Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.
Moore & West, of Ardmore, for defendants in error.
This is an action in ejectment commenced in the district court of Love county by plaintiff in error as plaintiff below, against the defendants in error as defendants below, to recover the possession of certain lands situated in Love county, of which the plaintiff claimed to be the owner by inheritance from her deceased mother and sister.
The defendants answered, pleading title in themselves by virtue of a guardian's sale, duly conducted in the county court of Le Flore county, and attached to their answer, as exhibits, copies of the entire probate proceedings had in said court, including the deed of Solomon Daney, as guardian of the plaintiff, to one W. B. Dennis, and also pleaded mesne conveyances, showing the title to said lands to be vested in them, and, by way of cross-petition, prayed that their title be quieted. The plaintiff replied, averring that the purported conveyances set out in said answer were void, for the reason that the county court of Le Flore county had no jurisdiction of the estate of the plaintiff, and that Solomon Daney was never properly appointed or the legal guardian of her estate.
Upon the issues thus framed, a trial was had which resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendants in accordance with the prayer of their answer and cross-petition, from which judgment the plaintiff has appealed.
It appears from the record that one J. J. Eaves was, on the 8th day of November, 1905, duly appointed guardian for the plaintiff by the United States Court for the Southern district of the Indian Territory, and that said guardianship proceeding was pending in said court at Marietta upon the admission of the state into the Union, and was by order of the district court of Love county duly transferred to the county court of said county, and, while this guardianship was still pending, the county court of Le Flore county, on August 10, 1908, appointed the plaintiff's father, Solomon Daney, her guardian; the plaintiff residing at that time in Le Flore county. Solomon Daney, acting as her guardian, filed in the county court of Le Flore county his petition for authority to sell the lands here involved, which sale was ordered, was made and confirmed, and guardian's deed executed and delivered. The plaintiff, after reaching her majority, seeks to recover the lands thus sold, contending that the county court of Le Flore county had no jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for her in 1908, because J. J. Eaves was her legal guardian at that time, that such guardianship was still in existence and pending in the county court of Love county, and that, the county court of Love county having jurisdiction over her guardianship, the jurisdiction of every other county court in the state to appoint a guardian for her was excluded.
This appeal presents for determination the following questions (1) Did the jurisdiction acquired by the county court of Love county, as the successor to the United States court for the Southern district of the Indian Territory, exclude the jurisdiction of the county court of Le Flore county, the county in which the plaintiff was then domiciled, to appoint a guardian for her; and (2) The records of the county court of Le Flore county showing the appointment of Solomon Daney in 1908, to be in all respects regular, and all proceedings being apparently valid, can the plaintiff recover the lands sold by her Le Flore county guardian, on the order of the county court of that county, to a bona fide purchaser?
In Maharry v. Eatman, 29 Okl. 46, 116 P. 935, this court held that the United States court for the Southern district of the Indian Territory had authority to appoint a guardian or curator of an estate of a minor, located in that district, although the domicile of the minor was in the Central district, and a guardian so appointed, when qualified, had authority to execute a valid lease on the minor's land. See, also, Eaves v. Mullen, 25 Okl. 679, 107 P. 443.
By the provisions of section 19 of the Enabling Act and sections 1 and 23 of the Schedule of the Constitution, the Eaves guardianship survived the admission of the state into the Union, and passed into the county court of Love county, as the successor of the United States court for the Southern district of the Indian Territory. Eaves v. Mullen, supra; Burdett et al. v. Burdett et al., 26 Okl. 416, 109 P. 922, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 964; Maharry v. Eatman, supra; Scott et al. v. McGirth, 41 Okl. 520, 139 P. 519; Crosbie et al. v. Brewer et al., 68 Okl. 16, 158 P. 388, 173 P. 441; De Walt v. Cline et al., 35 Okl. 197, 128 P. 121. Therefore the county court of Love county had jurisdiction of the guardianship of the estate of the plaintiff, and, so long as this guardianship was pending, the jurisdiction of every other county court in the state to appoint a guardian for the plaintiff was excluded. De Walt v. Cline, supra; Crosbie v. Brewer, supra; Baird et al. v. England et al., 85 Okl. 276, 205 P. 1098; State ex rel. Monahawee et al. v. Hazelwood et al., 81 Okl. 69, 196 P. 937; Parmenter v. Rowe, 87 Okl. 158, 200 P. 683.
The county court acquiring jurisdiction of an Indian Territory guardianship, as successor to the United States court in the Indian Territory, exercises a jurisdiction clearly defined by the aforesaid constitutional provisions, and the Legislature recognized this jurisdiction, beginning with the first session after statehood, enacted laws providing for the transfer of probate proceedings from one county court to another. Sess. Laws 1907-08, pp. 205-212; Sess. Laws 1910, p. 37; sections 6196-6198, R. L. 1910.
If, upon the creation of counties in that part of the state formerly comprising the Indian Territory, the domicile of the ward was in a county other than that to which his guardianship proceedings passed by virtue of the aforesaid constitutional provisions, the proper procedure was to transfer such proceeding to the county of his domicile, as provided by Sess. Laws 1907-08, supra, or, by appropriate action of the court to which such proceeding passed, terminate that guardianship before jurisdiction of another court is sought. To permit a minor, by merely removing his domicile from one county to another, to thereby oust the court, in which the guardianship was pending, of jurisdiction, and thereby vest jurisdiction in another county court to appoint a guardian, or to permit the parties to ignore entirely the jurisdiction acquired by one court and vest jurisdiction in another court, would introduce into the administration of the estates of minors and incompetents in this state, an intolerable condition of confusion with all the woes incident to two courts of concurrent jurisdiction undertaking to administer the estate at the same time. Such a condition would be intolerable. So long as the guardianship is pending in one county court, no other county court is at liberty to interfere with its jurisdiction. As was said by Justice Cooley in Maclean v. Speed, 52 Mich. 257, 18 N.W. 396:
That the county court of Love county, having first acquired jurisdiction over the guardianship of the estate of the plaintiff, possessed and retained jurisdiction to the exclusion of the county court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial