Cook v. Craft
| Decision Date | 09 September 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 35032,35032 |
| Citation | 207 Okla. 125,248 P.2d 236 |
| Parties | COOK et al. v. CRAFT. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. An administratrix in possession of real property cannot acquire title by prescription against those entitled to participate in the distribution of an estate.
2. Right of possession remains with the administrator until settlement or distribution, and it is his duty to preserve the estate until distribution is made to the heirs, unless, and in the manner provided by statute, the necessity should arise for a sale.
3. Mere naked possession or occupancy of premises, no matter how long, without a claim of right or color of title, cannot ripen into a good title, but must always be regarded as being an occupancy for the use and benefit of the true owner. To constitute the basis for adverse possession, the entry upon the property must be accompanied by a claim of right, or after entry, there must be a distinct denial or repudiation of the right of the true owner, or the possession will be deemed to be held in subordination to the rights of the owner.
4. The party relying on a title by adverse possession has the burden of proving all the facts necessary to establish such a title. Adverse possession is to be taken strictly, and every presumption is in favor of a possession in subordination to the rightful owner. Title by adverse possession, therefore, must be established by clear and positive proof. It cannot be made out by inference. All of its constituent elements must be established. Thus it is necessary to prove an actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and hostile possession for the full statutory period.
5. In a case involving equitable principles, if it is found that the trial courts' judgment is clearly against the weight of the evidence, this court will reverse the judgment and render, or cause to be rendered, such judgment and decree as the trial court should have rendered.
Frank D. McSherry, Irenus P. Keith, Logan E. Hysmith, McAlester, for plaintiffs in error.
Gordon & Whyte, McAlester, for defendant in error.
The defendants appeal from the judgment of the trial court quieting the title of the plaintiff to two tracts of land. These lands were allotted to James H. Reed, an intermarried citizen of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians. The allottee died intestate on August 16, 1926, and left surviving as his heirs at law, his widow, Maggie Reed, a full blood Choctaw Indian, and his daughter, Sarah Elizabeth Cook, born to a former marriage. On April 1, 1929, Maggie Reed, the widow, filed a petition for the appointment of herself as administratrix of the estate of James H. Reed, deceased, in which petition she listed herself and the daughter, Sarah Elizabeth Cook, as the sole heirs. An order was made appointing Maggie Reed administratrix. She qualified, gave notice to creditors and filed an inventory and appraisement which listed the property in question as assets of the estate. The administration proceedings were never closed and Maggie Reed was still acting in the capacity of administratrix at the time of her death on April 10, 1947.
When the allottee died this property was encumbered by mortgage, and on October 31, 1929, Maggie Reed and Sarah Elizabeth Cook joined in extending the mortgage indebtedness. On August 30, 1933, Sarah Elizabeth Cook died, intestate, and left as her sole and exclusive heirs at law her children, James H. Cook, Lola Rankin, Dubose Cook, Margaret Gragg and Alta Franklin, who are the defendants.
Maggie Reed died testate, and under the terms of her will $100 was bequeathed to each of the defendants, and the remainder of her property was devised and bequeathed to her niece, Annie M. Craft, who is the plaintiff. In the probate proceedings on the estate of Maggie Reed the two tracts of land which are in issue here were listed as assets of the estate and distributed to Annie M. Craft. The title of Annie M. Craft is based upon these administration proceedings and the title alleged to have been acquired by Maggie Reed by adverse possession.
The defendants admit the title of the plaintiff to an undivided one-half interest in the property, and they claim the other one-half based upon inheritance from their mother who in turn inherited from her father, the allottee. They plead estoppel on the part of the administratrix and Maggie Reed to assert adverse possession as against them.
While it is conceded that Maggie Reed actually was in possession of the premises from the death of the allottee until her death and that the plaintiff was in possession after the date...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Tiger
...title or interest is insufficient to establish title by adverse possession. Melton v. Goodman, Okl., 317 P.2d 244; Cook v. Craft, 207 Okl. 125, 248 P.2d 236. Plaintiff argues that the period of more than sixty days prior to the date of his deed, during which there were resolutions, notices,......
-
Moore v. Chapman
...of said property, and therefore statute of limitations were not applicable. In support of this contention defendants cite Cook v. Craft, 207 Okl. 125, 248 P.2d 236; Wilcox v. Wickizer, Okl., 266 P.2d 638; Morris v. Futischa, 194 Okl. 224, 148 P.2d 986; Cox v. Kelley, Okl., 295 P.2d 1061; Li......
-
Fadem v. Kimball
...the true owner, or the possession will be deemed to be held in subordination to the rights of the owner." (Quoting Cook v. Craft, 207 Okl. 125, 248 P.2d 236, 237 (per curiam) (syllabus P The Fadems assert that the Kimballs never denied or repudiated the Fadems' ownership; therefore, the pos......
-
Hayhurst v. Hayhurst
...a title by adverse possession as against them; 3 Am.Jur.2d Adverse Possession, Sec. 231; 2 C.J.S. Adverse Possession, § 91; Cook v. Craft, 207 Okl. 125, 248 P.2d 236. We note in passing that no effort at all was made at the trial to contradict the stipulation and show that plaintiff's posse......