Grooms v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 23 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 12492 |
| Citation | 93 Okla. 87,1923 OK 825,219 P. 700 |
| Parties | GROOMS et al. v. THOMAS et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Convicts--Forfeiture of Estates.
The law does not favor the forfeiture of estates and will not give effect to a forfeiture, except by express provision of statute or by a necessary implication flowing from some express provision of statute.
2. Same--Statutes.
The early English decisions holding that a conviction for crime forfeited the estate of the accused followed from bills of attainder and forfeiture enacted by the English Parliament. The English statute relating to attainder and forfeiture has been repealed by later acts except in cases of outlawry for treason. In our country legislative bodies have not provided for corruption of blood and forfeiture of estates on account of conviction of the accused for the commission of crime, except the act of Congress passed July 17, 1862, and the joint resolution of even date therewith.
3. Same-- Constitutional Provision.
Section 15, of article 2, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma forbids the passage of any legislative act that will operate to corrupt the blood or forfeit the estate of a person on account of conviction for the commission of crime.
4. Same--Rights of Convicts to Convey and Inherit.
A person convicted for the commission of a felony and sentenced therefor to the penitentiary for life may convey title to his real estate and inherit an estate to the same extent as if he had not been convicted and imprisoned for the commission of the crime.
5. Same-- Judgment--Affirmed.
Record examined, and held to support the judgment for defendants.
Wm. T. Rye, for plaintiffs in error.
W. H. Kornegay, for defendants in error.
¶1 Peter W. Grooms died intestate on February 24, 1911, in Craig county, seized and possessed of the title to the real estate involved in this action. The deceased left Gus Grooms, father, Dona Grooms and Leuretha Grooms, sisters, and Sedalia Martin, the child of a deceased sister. In 1908 Gus Grooms, the father, was convicted of murder in the district court of Craig county, and sentenced to the state penitentiary for his natural life. On August 21, 1911, Gus Grooms, by his warranty deed, conveyed the lands owned by the deceased to A. C. Gould, and the defendants claim title through the conveyance of Gus Grooms, except Dona Grooms. Section 2308, Comp. Stat. 1921, reads as follows:
¶2 It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the section quoted, on the conviction of the father for murder and sentence to the penitentiary for life, corrupted his blood and prevented the father from inheriting the lands from his son, and that by reason thereof title passed to the next nearest of kin, being the sisters and issue of a deceased sister. The question is presented to this court for decision for the first time under the laws of the state of Oklahoma and depends upon the construction to he placed upon section 2308, supra. So far as we are able to find neither Congress nor any Legislature has passed an act for the confiscation of the property of persons convicted of crime, except Congress, by the confiscation act of July 17, 1862, and the joint resolution of even date therewith, Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U.S. 202, 23 L. Ed. 473. The early English decisions holding that a conviction for crime or felony corrupted the blood so that the convicted person forfeited his estate, and operated to prevent inheritance or taking title to real estate, rested upon bills of attainder and forfeiture enacted by the English Parliament. Under the bill of attainder and forfeiture, the convicted person could neither inherit lands or hereditaments from his ancestors, or retain what he already had, nor transmit them to any heirs by descent because his blood was considered in law to he corrupted. The same rule applied in a case where a person was convicted for treason and his lands were forfeited to the Crown. However, the bills of attainder and forfeiture were abolished by the English Statutes of 33 and 34, Vict. c. 23.
¶3 The statutes referred to repealed the forfeiture laws except those relating to outlawry for treason and felony with its consequences. The English laws relating to outlawry for treason, as now modified, operate only to forfeit to the Crown the goods and chattels, real and personal, and also the profits of the convicted person, freeholds during his life, and after his death the right of the use of the freeholds for a year and a day to the Crown. Black's Constitutional Law (3rd Ed.) section 278. Even under the English forfeiture act applying to persons outlawed for treason, the effect does not go so far as is contended for by plaintiffs in this cause. The effect of section, 2308, supra, is to render a person convicted of crime and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, civiliter mortuus. The term "civil rights" in its broadest sense includes those rights which are the outgrowth of civilization, the existence and exercise of which necessarily follow from the rights that repose in the subjects of a country exercising...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mehdipour v. State Dept. of Corrections
...[Rejecting notion that "civil death" of a convicted felon included incapacity to initiate a civil suit for personal injuries.]; Grooms v. Thomas, 1923 OK 825, ¶ 4, 219 P. 700 [Upholding the right of a person convicted of a felony to convey title to real property and inherit an estate.]. See......
-
State v. One 1965 Red Chevrolet Pickup
...613, 113 S.Ct. at 2807. Oklahoma also abolished the English law's forfeiture-of-estates rule. Art. 2 § 15, Okl. Const.; Grooms v. Thomas, 1923 OK 825, 219 P. 700, 701-02. 41. 42. Statutory in rem forfeiture has been recognized as penal in nature. Austin, supra note 37, 509 U.S. at 614,113 S......
- Grooms v. Thomas