Gragg v. Pruitt
| Decision Date | 22 December 1936 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 23764 |
| Citation | 65 P.2d 994,179 Okla. 369,1936 OK 842 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | GRAGG v. PRUITT |
¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR - Review of Equity Case - Sufficiency of Evidence.
This court on appeal in an action of purely equitable cognizance will examine and weigh the evidence, but will not reverse the judgment because of the insufficiency of the evidence unless it can be said that the judgment is against the clear weight thereof.
2. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - Attorney Forbidden to Deal for Himself in Subject-Matter of Employment Without Client's Consent.
An attorney has no capacity to deal for himself in the subject-matter of his employment without his client's knowledge and consent.
3. SAME - Transaction by Attorney Without Client's Consent Void.
Where an attorney deals in the subject-matter of his employment without the knowledge and consent of his client, the question of good faith or fairness or adequacy of the consideration will not be inquired into. The door is shut to all investigation, on the principle that one cannot serve two masters, where is involved, and a transaction by an attorney involving the subject-matter of his employment, without the knowledge and consent of his client, is vitiated by the law, irrespective, of its merits, fairness, or good faith; and whether it is injurious to the client is immaterial, because the law does not stop to speculate upon the probability that the attorney resisted temptation; the law removes the temptation by proclaiming in advance that the attorney shall not deal for himself with the subject-matter intrusted to him by his client, without the knowledge and consent of his client.
4. TRUSTS - GUARDIAN AND WARD - Action by Minor to Declare Resulting Trust in Oil Lease Purchased by His Attorney at Guardian's Sale Held not Collateral Attack on Order Confirming Sale.
A suit in the district court to declare a resulting trust, and for accounting, by virtue of the purchase of an oil and gas lease at guardian's sale by the attorney for the guardian, is not a collateral attack upon the order of the county court confirming the sale.
5. JUDGMENT - Res Judicata and Estoppel by Judgment - Identity of Issues.
Where a party seeks to rely upon a former judgment as a defense to an action as res adjudicata or in estoppel, it is necessary to show that the former judgment determined, or should have determined the same issues sought to be adjudicated in the later case.
6. TRUSTS - Suit to Declare Resulting Trust and for Accounting Maintainable Regardless of Damages.
The rule that fraud without damages resulting therefrom never gives a right of action in favor of the defrauded party, does not apply to actions seeking only to declare a resulting trust and accounting.
7. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS - Presentation of Claims Where Defendant Dies Pending Action.
Section 1243, O. S. 1931, requiring the presentation of claim to the administrator of the estate of a person who dies during the pendency of an action against him, relates only to claims arising upon contract.
Appeal from District Court, Seminole County; E.A. Summers, Assigned Judge.
Action by Freelin Pruitt, a minor, by his guardians, against C.E. Gragg et al. to declare resulting trust in oil and gas lease, and for accounting. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
N.A. Gibson, W.A. Barnett, R.M. Cavanaugh, and Norvell & Norvell, for plaintiffs in error.
W.L. Seawell, for Pearl A. Dovell. A.M. Beets, William J. Zeman, and Banks, O'Brien & McVey, for defendant in error Freelin Pruitt.
¶1 This is an appeal from the district court of Seminole county. The parties on appeal occupy positions the reverse to that occupied in the trial court, and will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants, as they appeared in the lower court.
¶2 The plaintiff, a minor, by his guardian, brought suit to declare a resulting trust in a certain oil and gas lease executed by a former guardian, and for an accounting of the proceeds derived therefrom. The lease covered an undivided 1/6 interest belonging to the plaintiff in and to 120 acres of land in Seminole county. Several of the original defendants have died during the pendency of this litigation, and various other defendants have been substituted in their stead.
¶3 Upon trial of the cause to the court, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, declaring that the lease was held by the defendants in trust for the plaintiff. The judgment also required an accounting by the defendants as prayed in plaintiff's petition. Certain of the defendants have appealed.
¶4 The facts necessary to an understanding of the issues here are substantially as follows: A short time prior to May 26, 1927, one of the original defendants, an attorney, Mr. Orwig, met in conference with defendants Gragg and Dovell, and it was agreed between them that a guardian's sale of an oil and gas lease would be "put through" covering the minor's interest in the land involved, the remaining portions of the title being owned by adults. The defendant Orwig, as plaintiff's witness, testified in relation thereto as follows:
¶5 Some time after this agreement, and on May 26, 1927, the said guardian, represented by Orwig as his attorney, filed a petition in the county court of Seminole county, and on the same day procured an order of the county court authorizing the guardian at public sale to sell an oil and gas lease covering the minor's interest in the land involved. Upon the sale date none of the persons who had participated in the conference above mentioned appeared to buy the lease, whereupon Orwig procured one Norvell to purchase the lease at a bid of $1,000. Such sale was confirmed to Norvell in regular order, and the oil and gas lease was duly executed and delivered thereunder, but no part of the consideration was then paid.
¶6 Some 60 days thereafter, Norvell, upon Orwig's request, executed a conveyance of a one-half interest in the lease to the defendant Graham. Prior to that time the $1,000 representing the purchase price of the lease had not been paid to the guardian. At that time, however, it appears that Graham furnished $500 and Orwig furnished $500, which was paid to the guardian through Norvell, as the consideration for the lease. The record fairly shows that Graham then knew the manner in which the guardianship sale had been handled up to that time, and the trial court so found. Title to the remaining one-half interest in the lease remained in Norvell until January 17, 1928, when, at the request and direction of Orwig, he assigned the same to one of the defendants, Gragg. Norvell never at any time claimed an interest in the lease, purchasing same only at the request of Orwig, and paying for same only with money furnished by Graham and Orwig some 60 days after the confirmation of sale. Norvell at all times held the title subject to the directions of Orwig. He conveyed the remaining one-half interest to Gragg after he had received several thousand dollars in proceeds from the lease, and upon his suggestion to Orwig that he did not desire title to remain longer in his name, since payments were being received from oil companies which had developed the property.
¶7 The uncontradicted evidence shows, and it is not contended otherwise, that the guardian was not informed and never had knowledge from any source that sale of the guardian's lease was made to Norvell, as trustee, for the use and benefit of Orwig or any other person.
¶8 The judgment of the trial court contains the following findings of fact:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Superior Oil Corp. v. Wilson
...which was fully known in detail by the "assignees;" that the said "assignees" held the lease in trust for the minor. See Gragg v. Pruitt, 179 Okl. 369, 65 P.2d 994. by that litigation the record rights of the "assignees" came to be recognized as rights belonging to the minor who thereby own......
-
Thomas v. Wilson
...and Minton v. Roberts, 119 Okla. 32, 247 P. 662, cited and relied upon by defendant. We discussed these cases in Gragg et al. v. Pruitt et al., 179 Okla. 369, 65 P.2d 994, and with reference to the Watts Case, supra, we said: ". . . there is shown no possibility of there being any conflict ......
-
British Am. Oil Producing Co. v. Midway Oil Co.
...that same general line, and in reference to the high duty of an attorney to his client, reference might have been made to Gragg v. Pruitt, 179 Okla. 369, 65 P.2d 994. But neither that case nor any of the others cited go to the extent of supporting plaintiff's contentions as applied to the f......
-
Thomas v. Wilson
...and Minton v. Roberts, 119 Okla. 32, 247 P. 662, cited and relied upon by defendant. We discussed these cases in Gragg et al. v. Pruitt et al., 179 Okla. 369, 65 P.2d 994, and with reference to the Watts Case, supra, we said: ". . . there is shown no possibility of there being any conflict ......