Collier v. Bartlett
| Decision Date | 03 September 1918 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 9163 |
| Parties | COLLIER et al. v. BARTLETT. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Adverse Possession--What Constitutes--"Possession"--"Actual Possession."
What constitutes "possession" of land is a mixed question of law and fact; "actual possession" consisting of the exercise of acts of dominion over it, in making the ordinary use of it and taking the ordinary profits it is capable of yielding in its present state.
2. Equity--Nature of Jurisdiction.
Equity will not permit a mere form to conceal the real position and substantial rights of parties. It always attempts to get at the substance of things, and to ascertain, uphold, and enforce rights and duties which spring from the real relations of parties. It will never suffer the mere appearance and external form to conceal the true purpose objects, and consequences of a transaction.
3. Mines and Minerals--Injunction--Possession of Land--Waste.
While courts of equity will generally refuse to interfere with possession of land before the right is determined at law, yet, if defendant's possession is not exclusive, and is but an interruption of the prior, open, notorious, and peaceable possession of complainant, an injunction may be allowed, especially in cases where the entry by the defendant was for the purpose of committing waste such as the taking out of minerals.
Error from District Court, Creek County; Ernest B. Hughes, Judge.
Action by H. U. Bartlett against W. J. Collier and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Stuart, Cruce & Riddle and O'Meara, Bush & Moss, for plaintiffs in error.
J. F. Lawrence and John B. Meserve, for defendant in error.
¶1 H. U. Bartlett, as plaintiff, filed in the district court of Creek county. Okla., his verified petition against the defendants W. J. Collier, W. S. McCray, B. B. Burnett, B. C. Burnett, and Moss Petroleum Company, a corporation alleging in substance that the plaintiff was the owner of and in possession of 200 acres of land in sections 26 and 35, township 19 north, range 7 east; that some time in January, 1917, the defendants, by fraud, without right, and without notice to the plaintiff, went upon said land, cut and removed timber therefrom destroyed fences, and undertook, through their agents and employes, to make forcible and unlawful entry, and to take possession of said land, and further attempted to hold the premises violently and without right, and at the time of the institution of this suit claimed some right to the possession thereof; that said defendants did not have the possession or right of possession, but through their agents and employes were threatening to use force to interfere with the peaceable possession of the plaintiff, and unless restrained by the court would interfere with plaintiff's possession. It was further alleged in said petition that the lands were valuable for oil; that there were more than three producing oil wells owned by defendants, or some of them, offsetting plaintiff's land, and that, unless the plaintiff was permitted to have the peaceable and undisturbed possession of his land, defendants would take the oil belonging to the plaintiff and would irreparably injure and damage said plaintiff; that said damages could not be compensated, in a money judgment, and that if the defendants were not restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, and at the same time were permitted to continue the operation of the offsetting wells, the plaintiff would lose large and unascertainable sums of money; and that he had no adequate remedy at law. The plaintiff also charged that the offset wells had been operated for about two months, that large quantities of oil had been produced and removed from said premises, and that by reason thereof the plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $ 20,000, for which amount judgment was prayed. On plaintiff's application the court granted a temporary restraining order, and after a hearing was had, pursuant to notice at which the respective parties introduced evidence, a temporary injunction was ordered. It is from this action of the trial court that the defendants have appealed to this court. The suit for damages had not been tried at the time the appeal was taken.
¶2 The record shows that Mr. Bartlett, the plaintiff, went into possession of the land in controversy in 1906, claiming title thereto under deeds from the purported heirs of Harper Jessie, the allottee of said lands; that he immediately rented the same to one William Blair, who occupied it for about two years, cultivated a portion thereof, and used the remainder for pasture purposes, for which he paid the plaintiff the sum of $ 40 per year rental; that after Mr. Blair left Mr. Bartlett rented the land to a Mr. Doolin, who had been Mr. Blair's foreman, and who took possession of the land and has occupied the same ever since under rental contracts from year to year, and has paid the rent to the plaintiff, except for the years 1911 and 1912, at which time the United States government attempted to cancel the allotment and made a tentative filing thereon for another allottee, the rental for said years being paid to the Indian agent. The government, however, abandoned its efforts to cancel the allotment, and since said time Mr. Doolin has held the land under Mr. Bartlett and has paid the rent to him. The record further discloses that a part of the land was in cultivation and the remainder was pasture land; that Mr. Doolin was using the land for grazing and raising feed; that the farm land was on the inside of a big field, and that there was no fence on the east side of it, but that the grazing land was fenced. Mr. Bartlett has paid the taxes on the land since he has claimed to be the owner thereof, but neither he nor Mr. Doolin resided thereon.
¶3 Mr. Doolin testified that he had at all times recognized Mr. Bartlett as the owner of the land, and had held possession under him, and that no other person had at any time asserted any claim or right adversely to Mr. Bartlett until in January, 1917, the defendants went upon the premises, and constructed a tank, a small shack, and an oil rig. The testimony with reference to the way in which the defendants went upon the premises is only slightly conflicting. On this phase of the case Mr. Doolin's testimony is as follows:
¶4 Mr. McCray, one of the defendants, testified that he was interested in an oil and gas mining lease on the land and was associated with the Sapulpa Petroleum Company and that he commenced building a house, on the premises on the 3d day of January, 1917, With reference to the manner in which he entered upon the land he testified as follows:
¶5 The evidence further disclosed that the defendants, through some of their employes, occupied the house from the 13th day of January. until the 20th day of March, when the plaintiff procured their arrest for trespassing. The criminal proceedings do not appear to have been prosecuted to a termination at the time of the institution of the present action lint seem to have been abandoned. After the arrests plaintiff secured a temporary restraining order, which prevented the defendants from going back upon the premises.
¶6 Defendants invoke the proposition of law that courts of equity will refuse to interfere by granting an injunction, where the plaintiff is out of possession and claims possession against a defendant in possession under a claim of right, and cite numerous, authorities in support thereof. This proposition of law is sound, and is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial