Canfield v. Jack

• Decision Date: 10 February 1920
• Docket Number: Case Number: 8793
• Citation: 188 P. 1040,1920 OK 69,78 Okla. 127
• Parties: * CANFIELD et al. v. JACK et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1920 OK 69

188 P. 1040

78 Okla. 127

* CANFIELD et al. v. JACK et al.

Case Number: 8793

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 10, 1920

Syllabus

¶0 1. Equity--Maxims--"Clean Hands."

The maxim that one who comes into Equity must come with clean hands is based on conscience and good faith. The maxim is confined to misconduct in regard to, or at all events in connection with, the matter in litigation, so that it in some way affects the equitable relations subsisting between the two parties and arising out of the same transaction. "Clean hands" means a clean record with respect to the transaction with defendant, and not with respect to any third person.

2. Same--Validity of Deeds to Indian Land.

In the instant case the record is examined, and it is held that the finding and judgment of the trial court that C. did not come into court with unclean hands will not be disturbed.

3. Indians--Exclusive Powers of Congress--Champertous Conveyances.

Congress has exclusive power to authorize, regulate, and control the alienation of lands allotted to or inherited by members of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians, and the law on champerty as set forth in section 2260 of the Revised Laws of Oklahoma, 1910 had no application thereto.

4. Indians--Restricted Lands--Deed of Full-Blood Heirs--Approval.

In the instant case the lands involved were restricted, and the deed of the full-blood heirs required the approval of the county court in order to be valid as provided in section 9 of an act of Congress approved May 27, 1908, (35 Stat. at L. 312, ch. 199).

5. "Doctrine of Relation."

The doctrine of relation is that principle by which an act clone at one time is considered by a fiction of law to have been done at some other time.

6. Indians--Deeds -- Delay in Approval--Intervening Rights--Doctrine of Relation.

In the instant case, Cacy takes a deed from two full-blood Indian heirs, places it of record, and continues in possession for more than a year before securing the approval of his deed by the county court. In the meantime, however, Cornelius takes a deed from the same parties to the same land and has the same approved by the county court. The record does not show that Cacy had ever in tended to have his deed approved prior to the execution and approval of the Cornelius deed. He contended that as a matter of law his deed did not require the approval of the county court. Held, that the doctrine of relation is not applicable to the facts of this case wherein Cacy contends that the approval of his deed relates back to its execution and first delivery, thus cutting off the intervening interest of Cornelius to the lands involved.

7. Fraud--Pleading and Proof.

Fraud, if relied upon, must be pleaded and proved.

* Appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Error from District Court, Creek County; Ernest B. Hughes, Judge.

Action between G. W. Canfield and others and Lolly Jack, by his guardian, John Tiger, and others, involving title to Indian allotment of Susie Crow, deceased. From the judgment, the parties first mentioned bring error. Affirmed.

McGuire & Devereux, Albert A. Thayer, and Chas. W. Grimes. for plaintiffs in error.

Joseph C. Stone, Chas. A. Moon, Francis Stewart, Geo. S. Ramsey, Malcolm E. Rosser, Viilard Martin, J. Berry King, and Edgar A. de, Meules, for defendants in error.

Edward H. Chandler and Wm. O. Beall, amici curiae.

Chas. A. Dickson, amicus curiae.

HIGGINS, J.

¶1 The land involved in this litigation is in the heart of the Cushing oil field and is of great value. There were originally many parties and many conflicting interests, but owing to the fact that many of these interests have been settled, we will only burden the reader of this opinion with the facts necessary to determine the issues in this case.

¶2 In the month of September, 1899, Susie Crow, an infant, died, and after her death there was allotted to her heirs the lands, consisting of 160 acres, involved in this suit. On her mothers side there were two full-blood aunts, Mollie Crow, now Mollie Tiger, and Baby Barnett, now Baby Cumsey. They were the owners of one-sixth each of her allotment. On January 13, 1914, these two aunts joined in the execution of a deed to John Z. Cacy for their interest in the above lands, which was placed of record in the office of the county clerk January 20th following, and was approved by the county court as to 120 acres on March 3, 1915, and on February 14, I916, was approved as to the whole 160 acres. On October 28, 1914, these two heirs joined in the execution of a deed to their, interest in the above lands to Ira E. Cornelius, which was approved by the county court November 21, 1914. It is thus to be keen that the Cacy deed, which was the first in execution, was the last in approval, and that the Cornelius deed, which was the second in execution, was the first in approval. It is out of the conflicting claim of Cacy and his grantees and the claim of Cornelius, each claiming under his deed, that this cause arose.

¶3 In the pleading Cornelius claims title under his deed aforesaid, and Cacy and grantees in answer thereto plead as follows:

"And these defendants answering the cross-petition of Ira Cornelius say that they deny that said Ira Cornelius has or ever had any right, title, or interest in and to said land; that the pretended deeds taken by said Ira Cornelius were later in date than the deeds taken for the same land from the same grantors by these defendants, and that at the time of taking said deeds the title to said land had been conveyed by the grantors of said Ira Cornelius to these defendants and that these defendants were, and had been for more than one year prior to the execution of said deeds, in the open, notorious, and peaceable possession of said land, paying taxes thereon, and receiving the rents and profits therefrom, and that the grantors of said Ira Cornelius had not been in possession of said land, nor had they received the rents and profits for more than one year prior to the execution of said deed; that, in addition, the said Ira Cornelius took said deeds with full notice and knowledge of the possession and title of these defendants, and knew at the time he took said deeds that his grantors had conveyed any interest they might have in said lands to these defendants, and that said Cornelius represented to the county court of Creek county, in order to get said deeds approved for the very small consideration paid to his grantors, that their rights were very uncertain and doubtful; and these defendants say that under these facts the said Ira Cornelius does not come into court of equity with clean hands, but that he purchased a speculative title, knowing the rights of these defendants, and paying a very insignificant price therefor, for the express reason that the rights of his grantors were doubtful and in litigation; a copy of the deed to said Ira Cornelius is hereto attached, marked 'Exhibit J,' and made a part hereof.

"And further answering the cross-petition of the defendant, Ira Cornelius, these defendants say: That heretofore, to wit, on the day of , 19 , and prior to the execution of the pretended deeds by Mollie Tiger and Baby Barnett, instituted an action in the district court of Creek county, which said court then and there had jurisdiction in the premises herein, wherein the said Mollie Tiger and Baby Barnett were plaintiffs and George W. Canfield et al. were defendants, being known as Cause No. 3142, on the docket of said court, by which action the said plaintiffs claimed title and the right of possession in and to the land in controversy in this action; that such proceedings were had in said action, that the same was dismissed with prejudice to the rights of the said plaintiffs therein, and said judgment has become final; that said defendant, Ira Cornelius, purchased said land pending said action and with full knowledge thereof; and these defendants plead the judgment in said action as an estoppel of record against the said plaintiffs therein, and the said defendant, who purchased the said land with full knowledge of the pendency of said action."

¶4 The trial court found in favor of the Cornelius deed, and Cacy and his grantees seek a reversal in this court.

¶5 We shall classify the principal errors assigned for a reversal of this case as follows: First, that the court erred in failing to find that Cornelius came into court with hands unclean and that his deed was champertous; second, in finding that the rules of this court promulgated August 15, 1914, in regard to the approval of a full-blood deed, had not been violated; third, in holding that the lands involved were restricted and that the deed to him, Cacy, must be approved; and, fourth, in holding that the title in his, Cacy's, deed did not relate back to its execution and first delivery, thus cutting off Cornelius' rights acquired subsequent to the execution thereof.

¶6 Under the first assignment of error, that Cornelius did not come into court with clean hands, the record shows that Cornelius knew of the Cacy deed at the time he procured his, Cornelius', deed; that Cacy prior to his deed herein had procured a deed from another heir, and under that deed made improvements and was in possession of the land when the deed in question was executed to him.

¶7 In American Ass'n v. Innis, 109 Ky. 595, 60 S.W. 388, it is stated:

"The maxim that one who comes into Equity must come with 'clean hands' is based on conscience and good faith. The maxim is confined to misconduct in regard to, or at all events in connection with, the matter in litigation, so that it in some measure affects the equitable relations subsisting between the two parties and rising out of the same transaction. 'Clean hands' means a clean record with respect to the transaction with defendant, and not with respect to any third person."

¶8 We do not believe the evidence is sufficient to prove that Cornelius came into court with hands not clean. The question of the...