Clark v. Addison

• Decision Date: 14 May 1957
• Docket Number: No. 36756,36756
• Parties: I. P. CLARK, Jr., Jack Clark, Daniel J. Clark and I. P. Clark, Jr., as trustee, Plaintiffs in Error, v. E. C. ADDISON, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 256

311 P.2d 256

1957 OK 111

I. P. CLARK, Jr., Jack Clark, Daniel J. Clark and I. P.

Clark, Jr., as trustee, Plaintiffs in Error, v. E. C. ADDISON, Defendant in Error.

No. 36756.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 14, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. When court of equity obtains jurisdiction of a controversy for any purpose, it retains jurisdiction for purpose of administering complete relief, and to this end may determine purely legal rights which otherwise would be beyond its authority. Murray v. Speed, 54 Okl. 31, 153 P. 181.

2. The right to an accounting is one of equitable jurisdiction and contemplates a full and complete investigation of the mutual acts of the parties and the striking of a balance and rendition of judgment in favor of the party entitled thereto.

3. Where a joint adventure has been entered into for a prescribed term, or until the happening of a certain contingency, the death of the holder of the record title to the land involved in the venture does not terminate the venture, and the heirs or personal representatives of other deceased joint adventurers are entitled to recover their share through accounting proceedings.

4. The testimony of a joint adventurer seeking to recover his interest in property acquired in a joint adventure is not incompetent under 12 O.S.1951 § 384, as against the claims of heirs or personal representatives of a deceased joint adventurer.

Appeal from the District Court of LeFlore County; Clyde M. Followell, Judge.

Action to quiet title, establish interests of joint adventurers and accounting. Appeal from judgment for one defendant, establishing his claim as a joint adventurer and allowing him a portion of proceeds of joint adventure. Affirmed.

Windham & Windham, Poteau, Shaw, Jones & Shaw, Fort Smith, Ark., for plaintiffs in error.

Kelly Brown, Muskogee, H. Duane Stratton, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of LeFlore County in favor of the defendant in error, one of the defendants in the trial court. The plaintiffs in error are the heirs of one I. P. Clark, Sr. They joined with other parties plaintiff seeking relief with resect to certain real property in LeFlore County.

The action was brought by A. C. Dunklin, individually and as executor of the estate of W. B. Dunklin, deceased, and plaintiffs in error. The judgment of the trial court disposed of the claims of all parties both plaintiff and defendant except as here involved. The nature of the action brought by the plaintiffs as a whole and the issues raised by the pleadings as between all plaintiffs and defendant in error as a defendant and cross-petitioner are material to the issues on this appeal.

By their petition plaintiffs claimed ownership of a large tract of land, asserting the property to be then owned, an undivided 1/3 interest in A. C. Dunklin, together with an undivided 1/3 interest as executor of the estate of W. B. Dunklin, deceased, and an undivided 1/9 interests each in plaintiffs in error, totaling the remaining 1/3. It was alleged that Bryan Dunklin, the same person as W. B. Dunklin, acquired title to the property by tax deeds. That after the death of W. B. Dunklin and I. P. Clark, Sr., the interests originally acquired on a basis of 1/3 interest each to A. C. Dunklin, W. B. Dunklin and I. P. Clark, Sr., became vested in plaintiffs in the proportions then claimed. The allegations of the petition under the assertion of ownership as stated set out a cause of action to quiet title against all parties defendant by the usual general allegations as against the claims of all parties defendant. There was specific reference to the defendant, E. C. Addison, defendant in error, and one Roy Legris, also named a defendant, seeking injunctive relief against them from cutting timber on the land. Portions of the petition relating to determination of heirs, reforming deeds and general allegations affecting other parties defendant are not now material. The relief demanded included quieting of title in plaintiffs and petition.

The defendant in error, E. C. Addison, who will be referred to hereafter as defendant, filed a general denial and by cross-petition alleged that in February, 1941, he entered into an oral joint adventure agreement with I. P. Clark, Sr., Andrew Dunklin and Bryan Dunklin (the Dunklins so named are the same as A. C. Dunklin and W. B. Dunklin). That by the terms of the agreement Addison and Clark were to use their knowledge and experience in locating certain timber properties in LeFlore County and to make necessary investigations and institute proper procedure for purchase thereof through tax sales; that the purchase would be made in the name of Andrew Dunklin or Bryan Dunklin, who were to furnish the purchase money and pay taxes; that after purchase Addison and Clark were to look after the land, by paying taxes with the Dunklin funds and protecting the timber from theft; that the lands and timber thereon would be sold by the parties acting together; after sale the Dunklins would be reimbursed for money advanced, plus interest, and the profits divided 1/3 to Andrew Dunklin, 1/3 to Bryan Dunklin and 1/6 each to Clark and Addison. Defendant further alleged that the lands described in the petition were purchased by himself and Clark under the agreement and in accordance therewith; defendant acknowledged the death of Bryan Dunklin and I. P. Clark, Sr., and their heirs as alleged in the petition and plead that the interests in succession were impressed with the agreements and lien claimed by him and that such heirs and successors in interest had full knowledge of his claims; that there had been a disavowment and denial of the agreement after the death of the two parties of which defendant did not become aware until March, 1950; defendant's demand for relief included establishment of his claimed 1/6 interest in the profits, decree determining the record title to the property to be held in trust under the agreement and that after partition requested by plaintiffs, they be required to account for his share of the profits arising from sale.

After all parties plaintiff filed separate demurrers which were overruled, parties plaintiff then filed separate answers to defendant's cross-petition. The substance of which in addition to generally denying the allegations of the cross-petition raised issues as follows: defendant had failed to file a claim as a creditor of the estates of Bryan Dunklin and I. P. Clark, Sr., which was now barred by applicable statutes of limitation; that defendant's claim or cause of action is in violation of the statute of frauds and unenforceable; as further answer and by way of cross-petition the plaintiffs alleged that defendant had converted timber from the lands involved to their damage.

After the issues were drawn on the pleadings, by agreement of the parties, the first judgment was entered in the case expressly reserving therefrom the issue and prayer of plaintiffs in their petition for partition and the issues as between the parties on the cross-petition of defendant and responsive pleadings thereto, all of said issues to be subsequently determined. Title was quieted in plaintiffs and it was further provided that, if and when the property was sold 1/3 of the proceeds therefrom be paid into court pending the determination of the remaining issues.

Subsequent to the entry of this judgment the parties entered into a stipulation approved by the trial court whereby it was agreed that the sum of $7,743.47 was the proper net amount realized from the sale of the property to be paid into court and out of which distribution might be made in satisfaction of the remaining issues of the case.

The trial on the issues reserved from the first judgment was before the court without a jury. From the judgment entered awarding defendant one-half of the money deposited in court, plaintiffs in error appeal.

It was the position of all parties plaintiff and the defendant that the property was purchased at tax sales under a joint agreement and title taken in the name of Bryan Dunklin to be held by him for the benefit of the contracting parties. The only controversy arises over the question as to whether or not the defendant together with I. P. Clark, Sr., or Clark alone, was to share in the transactions to the extent of a 1/3 interest for services rendered. It was not disputed that the Dunklins supplid the finances and were to share the 2/3rds interest.

Under the issues thus joined defendant presented testimony and certain written instruments in support of his contentions. In substance his proof was as follows: Defendant testified that pursuant to a preconceived plan with I. P. Clark, Sr., the two met with the two Dunklins and the four parties entered into the agreement according to the terms which were plead in defendant's cross-petition; that in accordance with the agreement he and Clark assisted in the purchase of some 3177 acres of land of which the lands subject to the action were a part; that he had performed various services in connection with the acquisition and care of the property so purchased and held, all within the knowledge and under the direction of the Dunklins. Defendant also produced the testimony of one Ferne Fields employed in defendant's office as secretary during the period defendant and Clark had engaged in therir services in connection with the purported agreement with the Dunklins. Her testimony was, in substance, that Clark and defendant had discussed in her presence the proposed project of securing finances to purchase the land and were going to the Dunklins to solicit financial aid; that Clark and defendant proceeded toward the purchase of timber land at tax sales and procured some 3177 acres; that she made plats of the land to be purchased and purchased and had written letters and various memoranda and maintained files containing various instruments of this nature, which she...