Cochran v. Blanck

• Decision Date: 21 March 1916
• Docket Number: 5918.
• Citation: Cochran v. Blanck, 53 Okla. 317, 156 P. 324, 1916 OK 347 (Okla. 1916)
• Parties: COCHRAN ET AL. v. BLANCK ET AL.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

156 P. 324

53 Okla. 317, 1916 OK 347

COCHRAN ET AL. v. BLANCK ET AL.

No. 5918.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

March 21, 1916

Syllabus by the Court.

The action of a county court of this state in approving a deed conveying the interest of a full-blood Cherokee Indian to lands inherited by such Indian, required by section 9 of Act Cong. May 27, 1908, c. 199, 35 Stat. 312, is not judicial in its nature nor the exercise of any judicial function.

Certain full-blood heirs of a deceased Cherokee citizen executed conveyances of their interest in and to the lands of the deceased, which deeds were duly approved by the county court of Adair county, being the county court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of the deceased allottee. Held, that said deeds were valid.

Error from District Court, Nowata County; J. L. Brown, Judge.

Action by Rufus Cochran and others against F. A. Blanck and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

Thomas & Thomas, of Wagoner, W. W. Hastings, of Tahlequah, and C. F Bliss, of Nowata, for plaintiffs in error.

Tillotson & Elliott, of Nowata, for defendants in error.

HARDY J.

George Cochran, a full-blood Cherokee Indian, died May 19, 1910 seised of certain lands, including the lands in controversy leaving as his sole surviving heirs at law the plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called plaintiffs, full-blood Cherokee Indians, who bring ejectment for the lands involved and join in their petition under chapter 10, Session Laws 1911, p. 25, a count for the purpose of determining the adverse estate or interest in said land claimed by defendant.

On October 12, 1912, plaintiffs executed a deed conveying 50 acres of land, including the lands involved, to one F. A. Blanck, for a consideration of $270, and on said day Rufus Cochran, acting for himself and on behalf of the other plaintiffs signed a petition to the county court of Adair county, being the court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of said George Cochran, deceased, praying the approval of said deed. The petition was presented to the county court, and after an investigation by the court the papers were returned to Rufus Cochran because the consideration recited in said deed had not been paid, with instructions to hold the papers until the consideration was in fact paid. There is a controversy in the evidence as to whether the order of approval was signed on October 12th, or on a later date. Within about two weeks after the 12th of October, Blanck and one Wiley went to the home of Rufus Cochran and delivered to Rufus Cochran six checks for $58 each, being one for each of plaintiffs, and obtained possession of the deed, and the petition and order of approval, and Rufus Cochran and his brother, Sanders Cochran, signed a letter to the judge of the county court, requesting that the deed be approved. The checks were accepted by each of plaintiffs and the money realized thereon expended by them. Upon obtaining the papers from Cochran, Blanck and Wiley presented the petition and deed to the court for approval, together with the letter from Rufus and Sanders Cochran, asking that same be approved. The evidence is conflicting as to whether the judge then approved the deed and whether the papers were delivered to the clerk of the county court by Wiley or by the judge of the court. The evidence does show, however, that the papers were delivered to the clerk about that time and by him placed in a pigeon hole because he had been ordered by the county commissioners not to place the file mark on any papers in his office until the fees had been paid therefor. On January 4th, the fees for filing the same were paid and the papers were filed by the clerk as of that date. The judge testifies that he personally placed the papers on the clerk's desk. The petition for approval and the order of approval duly signed by the judge of the county court have been in possession of the clerk of the county court ever since about the 31st day of October, and a copy thereof was recorded in the office of the register of deeds on the 2d day of November, 1912.

On January 10th plaintiffs began this...