Haddock v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 14 December 1920
• Docket Number: Case Number: 9586
• Citation: 80 Okla. 250,1920 OK 375,194 P. 1077
• Parties: HADDOCK et al. v. JOHNSON et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1920 OK 375

194 P. 1077

80 Okla. 250

HADDOCK et al. v. JOHNSON et al.

Case Number: 9586

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: December 14, 1920

Syllabus

¶0 1. Courts--Supreme Court--"Control Over Inferior Courts.

Section 2, article 7, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, which grants to the Supreme Court general supervising control over inferior courts and all commissions and boards created by law, refers to inferior courts when exercising judicial functions, and when hearing and determining matters before said courts from which an appeal may be taken or to which writs of certiorari or other like writs may lie.

2. Same-- Prescribing Rules for Courts.

Section 5347, Revised Laws 1910, which authorizes the Justices of the Supreme Court to make and revise rules and make such amendments thereto as may be required to carry into effect the provisions of the Code, and to make such further rules consistent therewith as they may deem proper, limits the authority to make rules for such inferior courts, when such courts are in the exercise of judicial functions and courts are in determination of matters from which an appeal may be taken or to which writs of certiorari or other like writs may lie.

3. Courts--Judicial Functions--Approval of Indian Deeds by County Court.

The action of a county court of this state in approving a conveyance of a full-blood Indian heir to lands inherited by such Indian from a member of the tribe, which conveyance was required by section 9 of the act of Congress of May 27, 1908, to be approved by the county court, is not judicial in its nature, nor the exercise of any judicial function.

4. Courts--Right of Appeal--Approval by County Court of Indian's Deed.

An appeal will not lie from an action of the county court in approving or disapproving a conveyance of a full blood Indian heir pursuant to the act of Congress of May 27, 1908.

5. Certiorari--Scope of Remedy.

Whilst certiorari is the appropriate remedy by which courts vested with superintending control and supervision over inferior tribunals established by statute review such proceedings or acts of the latter as are of a judicial nature for the purpose of determining whether they have kept within or exceeded the powers conferred upon them by law, the writ is never used for the purpose of reviewing proceedings and acts of a ministerial, administrative, or legislative nature, whether such acts be exercised by a court, officer, or other tribunal.

6. Indians--Validity of Conveyance- -Approval by County Court.

The failure of the county court to follow the procedure provided for in former rule 10 of this court, in approving conveyance of full-blood Indian heirs, as provided for in section 9 of the act of May 27, 1908, does not render said conveyance void for that reason.

Error from District Court, Carter County; W. F. Freeman, Judge.

Action by Jimmie Johnson and others against E. T. Haddock and R. H. Chowning to cancel conveyance of full-blood Indian heirs. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded.

Geo. S. March and McPherren & Cochran, for plaintiffs in error.

J. B. Moore and R. B. Brown, for defendants in error.

Summers Hardy, Ralph E. Campbell, Thos, H. Owen, H. A. Ledbetter, Jos. C. Stone, and Jno. M. Chick, amici curiae.

McNEILL, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from the district court of Carter county, and it is agreed that the same involves only one question, which is stated as follows:

"The only question for determination in this case is whether it was necessary for the county court in approving a full-blood conveyance on the 15th day of August, 1914, to comply with the rule 10 of the Supreme Court of the state of Oklahoma. If compliance with such rule is necessary, the deed of plaintiffs in error was void; if such compliance was not necessary, then the trial court erred in entering judgment on the pleadings."

¶2 This court, on June 11, 1914, promulgated the rules, and the one in controversy is rule 10, which prescribed certain procedure for the county court to follow while acting under the authority of section 9 of the act of Congress of May 27, 1908, in approving conveyances made by full-blood Indian heirs. It is contended that rule 10 was ineffective for the reason this court was without authority to provide rules regulating the procedure to be followed by the county court in the approval of conveyances of full-blood Indian heirs, for the reason the county court in the approval of said conveyances was not in the exercise of any judicial function, but was acting in an administrative capacity as an agency of the federal government.

¶3 The power of the Supreme Court to exercise a superintending control over inferior courts is primarily derived from the Constitution of the state, to wit, section 2, article 7, which is as follows:

"The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to a general superintending control over all inferior courts and all commissions and boards created by law."

¶4 This court has had occasion to construe said section of the Constitution and announced the test to be applied in determining whether this court had superintending control over certain boards and commissions created by state authority. The test to be applied in determining this question was announced by this court in the case of The Homesteaders v. McCombs, 24 Okla. 201, 103 P. 691, wherein this court stated as follows:

"The words 'commissions' and 'boards,' as used in connection with the term 'inferior courts,' mean such commissions or boards as judicial power may be vested in pursuant to section 1, art. 7 (Bunn's Ed., 169), of the Constitution, and the hearing and determination of matters by commissions or boards from which appeals may be taken, or to which writs of certiorari, and other like writs, may lie, appears to be the test."

¶5 This same construction of this section of the Constitution was reaffirmed by this court in the case of Montgomery v. State Election Board, 27 Okla. 324, 111 P. 447. If the commissions and boards referred to in section 2, article 7, are such boards and commissions as may be vested with judicial power, and this court has superintending control over them only when they are in determination of matters from which an appeal may be taken or to which writs of certiorari or other like writs may lie, it would seem the same rule would be applicable to inferior courts, and while such courts are vested with judicial power, the Supreme Court could only exercise superintending control over such inferior courts when such courts were in determination of matters from which an appeal may be taken, or to which writs of certiorari, or other like writs may lie.

¶6 The statute that authorized this court to adopt the rules for inferior courts is section 5347, Rev. Laws 1910, which is as follows:

"The Justices of the Supreme Court shall meet every two years during the month of June * * * and revise their general rules, and make such amendments thereto as may be required to carry into effect the provisions of this Code, and shall make such further rules consistent therewith as they may deem proper. The rules so made shall apply to the Supreme Court, the district courts, the superior courts, the county courts, and all other courts of record."

¶7 It will be noticed that the statute provides that the court shall adopt such rules "as may be required to carry into effect the provisions of this Code and shall make such further rules consistent therewith as they may deem proper." The authority to make such further rules consistent therewith must also be limited to making such rules for the inferior court when said court is in the exercise of its judicial functions, and when in determination of matters from which an appeal may be taken or to which writs of certiorari or other writs may lie. The force and effect of a duly authorized rule of the appellate court over an inferior court is well defined in the case of Thompson v. Hatch, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 512, and is stated as follows:

"Duly authorized rule of court has the force of law, and is binding upon the court as well as upon the parties to an action, and cannot be dispensed with to suit the circumstances of any particular case."

¶8 The same rule is announced in 6 Standard Ency. Procedure 63, as follows:

"Rules have the force and effect of law, and are binding upon litigants and upon counsel, upon the court and its officers. A rule made pursuant to statutory authority by an appellate court to govern the procedure in inferior courts is binding upon the latter, and rules adopted by a board or convention of judges are binding on the individual judge."

¶9 This same rule was announced and approved by this court in the case of State v. Knight, County Judge, 49 Okla. 202, 152 P. 362. The binding force of a rule of an appellate court, when authorized, over an inferior court is discussed in the cases of Bank of U.S. v. White, 8 Pet. (U.S.) 262; Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Keith, 77 F. 374; and Bryant Bros. v. Robinson, 149 F. 321, and they sustain the rule announced above.

¶10 We will now direct our attention to the following questions:

First. Was the county court, in the approval of a conveyance of a full-blood Indian heir, in the exercise of any judicial function?

Second. Or in determination of any matter over which an appeal may be taken?

Third. Or was it in determination of any matters to which writs of certiorari or other like writs may lie?

¶11 The first question has been decided by this court, and the United States courts, and they have definitely settled the question that the county court of this state, in approving a conveyance of a full-blood Indian heir, is not in the exercise of any judicial function, but is simply acting as an agency of the federal Government. Cochran v. Blanck, 53 Okla. 317, 156 P. 324; Mullen v. Short, 38 Okla. 333, 133 P. 230; Buck v. Simpson, 65 Okla....