Coker v. Watson

• Decision Date: 05 October 1926
• Docket Number: Case Number: 17025
• Parties: COKER v. WATSON et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1926 OK 786

252 P. 829

123 Okla. 199

COKER v. WATSON et al.

Case Number: 17025

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 5, 1926

Syllabus

¶0 1. Pleading--Judgment on Pleadings--Not Favored--When Proper--Absence of Material Issues.

Judgment on the pleadings is authorized by Comp. Stat. 1921, section 682, but such practice is not favored by the courts, for the reason that it tends to prevent trials on the merits. Where, however, the only issues of fact joined by the pleadings are immaterial as a matter of law, judgment on the pleadings is proper, for the reason that it is only when the pleadings present issues of material fact that the parties are entitled to trial by jury.

2. Indians--Restricted Indian Lands--Sale by Interior Department--Delivery of Deed as Act of Approval.

In the sale of restricted Indian lands through departmental proceedings the order of the Secretary of the Interior removing restrictions, to be effective only and simultaneously with the sale, is an approval by him of the sale, for the purposes stated in the application, if thereafter made in full conformity with the regulations then in force, and his delivery of the deed to the purchaser in completion of the transaction is final evidence of such approval.

3. Same--Mental Incompetency of Grantor--Absence of Fraud--Validation.

In such a case, where the grantor is in fact mentally incompetent, but there is no allegation of fraud inducing the execution of the deed, such deed, when delivered by the department to the purchaser, is merely voidable and not void, and its infirmity is cured by the Act of Congress of August 24, 1922, validating all conveyances of allotted Indian lands theretofore approved by the Secretary of the Interior. In a subsequent action brought to cancel such deed allegations of the mental incompetency of the grantor at the date the deed was signed, controverted by the answer, raise no issue of material fact for determination by a jury.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.

Error from District Court, Creek County; James Hepburn, Judge.

Action by Wisey Coker, an incompetent, by Susan Proctor, her guardian, against J. M. Watson et al. to recover possession of certain real estate and to quiet her title thereto. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

This action was commenced January 29, 1923, by plaintiff filing in the district court of Creek county her petition, wherein she alleged in substance that she is an adult, incompetent, full-blood Creek Indian, and that she had theretofore conveyed the premises in controversy by deed, but that said deed was executed by herself without the intervention of a guardian through the probate court, and that the defendants Watson hold the title to the land under such deed, claiming to be the owners thereof, and that the defendant Gypsy Oil Company holds an oil and gas lease on said lands through and under the other defendants above named, but that both the deed and the oil and gas lease are totally void, for the reason that plaintiff was and is a congenital idiot, and a person permanently and totally without understanding at all times, including the time of the making and delivery of said deed; that defendants at all times had actual and constructive knowledge of such idiocy of the plaintiff, and that in taking such instruments with such knowledge they were guilty of constructive fraud in taking from the plaintiff her property by and through such void conveyances.

Numerous pleadings were filed and various orders entered by the court, eventuating in the filing of separate answers by the Watsons and by the Gypsy Oil Company. The answer of the Watsons and the answer of the Gypsy Oil Company are practically in the same language, and set up the same matters in defense to plaintiff's cause of action. In substance these answers allege: A general denial of all of the material allegations contained in plaintiff's petition; affirmative allegations that the conveyance from plaintiff to J. M. Watson was taken in good faith through regular proceedings had before the Department of the Interior of the United States, and that said purchaser paid full value for such conveyance; that the conveyance was approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and that such approval validates the same, even if the deed had been void in the first instance, which the defendants expressly deny.

Plaintiff filed her separate replies to these separate answers, denying all new matters alleged in said answers and alleging anew the incompetency of the plaintiff at the date of the execution of said deed.

Motions were filed by the defendants Watson and by the Gypsy Oil Company for judgment on the pleadings. On September 21, 1925, these motions came on for hearing before the court, and at the conclusion of said hearing the court entered its order sustaining both motions, and thereupon entered judgment in conformity with said order, and dismissed plaintiff's action.

To reverse this order and judgment of the trial court plaintiff has brought the case here by petition in error with transcript for review.

Wallace & Wallace, Wayne H. Lasater, and B. C. Redgrove, for plaintiff in error.

Thrift & Davenport, James B. Diggs, William C. Liedtke, Redmond S. Cole, and C. L. Billings, for defendants in error.

LOGSDON, C.

¶1 There are five assignments of error in the petition in error, but in the presentation of the case in the briefs plaintiff comprises all assignments of error under two propositions, thus stated:

"First, that judgments on the pleadings are never favored and are also reversible judgments when there are facts disputed in the pleadings and when there is on file a reply which denies the affirmative new matter set up in the answer.

"Second, that the Secretary of the Interior did not approve the deed made by Wisey Coker to J. M. Watson; that he had no authority to approve such deed; that he did not undertake to do so; that if he had undertaken to approve such a deed the approval would have been void and of no effect; and that the order of the Secretary of the Interior made in this case is not within the scope of the meaning of the Act of Congress of August 24, 1922."

¶2 Under the first proposition above quoted plaintiff cites and relies upon the following cases heretofore determined by this court: Peck et al. v. First Nat. Bank of Claremore, 50 Okla. 252, 150 P. 1039; Cobble et al. v. Farmers' Nat. Bank of Tecumseh et al, 53 Okla. 814, 158 P. 364; Smith et al. v. Jos. W. Moon Buggy Co., 66 Okla. 333, 169 P. 875; Purdy et al. v. State ex rel. Hall, 77 Okla. 218, 187 P. 800; Mires v. Hogan, 79 Okla. 233, 192 P. 811; Henryetta Spelter Co. et al. v. Guernsey et al., Receivers, 82 Okla. 71, 198 P. 495; Yeargain v. Sutter et al., 85 Okla. 41, 204 P. 122; Broadwell v. Dirickson, 85 Okla. 242, 205 P. 751; Carignano v. Box, 97 Okla. 184, 223 P. 673; Owens v. Moraine et ux., 105 Okla. 285, 232 P. 818.

¶3 Each of these cases has been carefully examined and considered. All of them were actions for the recovery of money or of specific personal property. In most of them the rule as to issues of fact raised by the pleadings, which will defeat a motion for judgment on the pleadings, is stated in inexact language, omitting the word "material." The correct rule is considered to have been announced in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus to the case of Mires v. Hogan, supra, in this language:

"A judgment on the pleadings is rendered, not because of the lack of evidence or proof, but because of a lack of issue of fact. If the pleadings present no material issue of fact, then it becomes a question of law as to which party is entitled to judgment."

¶4 This language is in consonance with statutory provisions. Comp. Stat. 1921, section 530, provides:

"An issue of fact arises: First, upon a material allegation in the petition, controverted by the answer. * * *"

¶5 A material allegation is thus defined by section 308, Id.:

"A material allegation, in a pleading, is one essential to the claim or defense, which could not be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient."

¶6 It is thus clearly evident that not every "issue of fact" joined by the pleadings will preclude affirmative action by the court upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings. It must be an issue of fact joined upon material allegations essential to the maintenance of the claim or defense. Mires v. Hogan is not alone among decisions of this court recognizing this distinction. Adkins v. Arnold et al., 32 Okla. 167, 121 P. 186; Chambers v. Kirk et al., 41 Okla. 696, 139 P. 986; Shipman et al. v. Porter, 48 Okla. 265, 149 P. 901; Miller v. State, 79 Okla. 266, 192 P. 1093.

¶7 In the instant case the issue of fact joined by the pleadings, and which plaintiff urges as the basis of her claim of error by the trial court in rendering judgment on the pleadings, was the mental incompetency of plaintiff at the time of the sale of her land through proceedings before the Interior Department. Plaintiff expressly alleged congenital imbecility and mental incompetency existing and continuing since her birth, and alleged notice and knowledge of this condition on the part of the purchaser, J.

¶8 M. Watson. Defendants controverted this by general denials and by express allegations in their answers. This clearly and directly presents for determination the question: In the sale of the lands of a restricted full-blood Indian through departmental proceedings for the purpose of securing funds for such Indian's support and maintenance, is the mental competency of such Indian, an essential prerequisite to the validity of such proceedings and to the validity of the deed executed pursuant thereto?

¶9 If this question may be answered in the affirmative, then the allegations of mental incompetency contained in plaintiff's petition were material allegations, and, when controverted by the allegations of the answers, presented an issue of material fact which would preclude the trial court...