Citizens' Trading Co. v. Bass
Decision Date | 16 January 1912 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 1466 |
Citation | 120 P. 1095,1912 OK 93,30 Okla. 747 |
Parties | CITIZENS' TRADING CO. v. BASS. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 TRUSTS--Suit to Establish--Petition--Sufficiency. Where, in a suit to have the purchaser from the holder of a patent of a town lot in a town in the Osage Nation declared the trustee for a corporation, the petition fails to allege what steps were taken by the corporation in endeavoring to have the patent issued to it, and fails to set forth the grounds upon which the commission acted in refusing the corporation the right to buy, a demurrer thereto is properly sustained.
Error from District Court, Osage County; John J. Shea, Judge.
Action by the Citizens' Trading Company against William G. Bass. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Grinstead, Mason & Scott, for plaintiff in error.
Boone, Leahy & MacDonald, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment in the district court of Osage county, sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's petition. The petition alleges that the plaintiff is a corporation, and for more than twenty years prior to the 3d day of March, 1905, was in the exclusive possession of a parcel of land in the city of Pawhuska, Okla., now known as lot 9, block 84, and that on said date and for a long time prior thereto, it had permanent improvements on the lot; that the plaintiff and its grantors were licensed Indian traders at the Osage agency; that the land was used by it and its grantors in connection with their business; that on the 3d of March, 1905, plaintiff had permanent improvements on the lot, consisting of one frame barn, used for the storage of baled hay and agricultural implements; that the lot was partially inclosed with a seven-foot picket fence, erected on posts permanently placed on the lot, and that the lot was being used by plaintiff on the 3d of March, 1905, for a wagon yard, in connection with its mercantile business. The petition then proceeds as follows:
¶2 It further alleges that neither the defendant, nor his grantors, was ever in possession of the property, or had any improvements thereon, and that the action of the Osage Townsite Commission in conveying the property to the said J. W. Martin was without authority of law, and in violation of plaintiff's rights, and void. It further tendered into court the sum of $ 100, appraised value of the property, for the use and benefit of the defendant, Bass, or any other person to whom it might be found to belong, and prayed judgment; that it is the legal owner of the lot; and that the defendant, Bass, be decreed to hold legal title for its use and benefit, and be required to convey the lot to plaintiff, and that in lieu of the conveyance the judgment and decree of the court stand as such conveyance.
¶3 The act governing townsites in the Osage Nation, so far as it applies to the question involved here, is as follows:
"Provided, that said lots, shall be appraised at their real value, exclusive of improvements thereon or adjacent thereto, and the improvements appraised separately; and provided, further, that any person, church, school, or other association in possession of any of said lots, and having permanent improvements thereon shall have a preference right to purchase the same at the appraised value, but in case the owner of the improvements refuses or neglects to purchase the same, then such lots shall be sold at public auction at not less than the appraised value, the purchaser at such sale to have the right to take possession of the same upon paying the occupant the appraised value of the improvements." (Act March 3, 1905, c. 1479, 33 Stat. 1061.)
¶4 It does not appear from the petition when the right to acquire these lots could have been exercised. The petition does not show whether they were for sale at any time before the month of January, 1906, though it does allege that the plaintiff had a vested right to purchase the property from and after the passage of the act. Nor does the petition show how Martin purchased, whether at public auction, or after a contest with plaintiff, though it would appear from a reading of the whole petition that the lot was sold at public auction. The petition states that plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the appraised price to the townsite commission, but does not allege that it tendered the amount before the sale to Martin, and the reasonable inference from the petition is that no tender was made, because the averment is that "plaintiff was at all times ready and willing to pay to the said Osage Townsite Commission upon the execution to it of a proper deed of conveyance." This inference is strengthened by the subsequent allegation of the petition that plaintiff protested against the sale and tendered the appraised price of the property to the townsite commission and to Martin, and later to the defendant, Bass, after the sale to him. The petition does not allege or show that anything was ever filed before the townsite commission, or any written protest made prior to the sale, and it does not allege or show that any effort was made, except at the time the protest against the sale was made, and the tender made, to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from issuing deed to the property. It also appears from the petition that while the property was sold in January,...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Citizens' Trading Co. v. Bass
-
Turner v. Old Homestead Co.
...difficult question for determination is presented. The power of the courts generally in such cases is well settled. Citizens' Trading Co. v. Bass, 30 Okla. 747, 120 P. 1095; Ross v. Day, 29 Okla. 186, 116 P. 949, affirmed in 232 U.S. 110, 34 S. Ct. 233, 58 L. Ed. 528; Johnson v. Riddle, 41 ......
- Bozarth v. Mitchell
-
Welch v. Bohart
...Oil Co. v. Shufflin et al., 32 Okla. 808, 124 P. 15; Fearnow et al. v. Jones et al., 34 Okla. 694, 126 P. 1015; Citizens' Trading Co. v. Bass, 30 Okla. 747, 120 P. 1095; Acton v. Culbertson, 38 Okla. 280, 132 P. 812. ¶3 Alluwee Oil Co. v. Shufflin et al., supra, was a suit in the district c......