Ingram v. Groves

• Decision Date: 15 November 1921
• Docket Number: Case Number: 10228
• Parties: INGRAM v. GROVES et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1921 OK 380

202 P. 1019

84 Okla. 159

INGRAM v. GROVES et al.

Case Number: 10228

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: November 15, 1921

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Accepting Benefits of Judgment--Right to Appeal.

A party to an action who voluntarily accepts from his adversary the benefits accruing to him under a judgment cannot question the validity of such Judgment in this court on appeal, and thus deny the rights flowing to such adversary under said judgment.

2. Same.

When a party to an action voluntarily, accepts the benefits accruing to him under a judgment, he thereby recognizes the validity of such judgment as against him. Such act on his part operates as a waiver of his right re prosecute an appeal therefrom or to bring error to reverse it.

3. Same--Moot Question.

Where a party to an action by any voluntary act on his part recognizes the validity of a judgment, all questions he could have raised in an appellate court affecting its validity have become moot.

4. Same--Dismissal of Appeal

When it appears that the questions presented in an action or proceeding pending before this court have become moot, the action or proceeding win be dismissed. State ex rel. Freeling, Atty. Gen., v. Taylor et al., Excise Board of Oklahoma County, 82 Okla. 220, 200 P. 149.

Error from District Court, Muskogee County; R. P. deGraffenried, Judge.

Action by Johnson Groves and T. B. Mathews against A. T. Ingram to obtain a decree of court that a certain agricultural lease is in fact, a mortgage, and to cancel the same. Judgment for the plaintiffs canceling the lease. Defendant appeals. Dismissed.

William Neff and L. E. Neff, for plaintiff in error.

Myron White and W. J. Crump, for defendants in error.

MILLER, J.

¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Muskogee county on November 10, 1917, by Johnson Groves and T. B. Mathews, as plaintiffs, against A. T. Ingram, as defendant, for the purpose of canceling a certain five-year agricultural lease on 50 acres of land described as the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter and the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section thirty-six (36), township eleven (11) north, range-nineteen (19) east, in Muskogee county, Okla. hams.

¶2 The case was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury. At the conclusion of the trial the court made its findings of fact and announced its judgment thereon in favor of the plaintiffs, canceling the lease on condition that the plaintiffs pay to the defendant a certain sum of money. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled by the court; saved all necessary exceptions, gave notice of appeal, and brings the case to this court for review. He appears here as plaintiff in error.

¶3 The facts, so far as necessary to a complete understanding and determination of this case, are as follows: On March 4, 1916, Johnson Groves was the owner of and in possession of the land above described. On that day he executed a lease in writing whereby he leased and let to A. T. Ingram the above-described land for a period of five years beginning on the first day of January, 1917, for a consideration of $ 200, payable $ 40 on January 1, 1917, and $ 40 on January 1st each year thereafter during the life of the lease.

¶4 On December 4, 1916, Johnson Groves and Jennie Groves executed a lease in writing whereby they leased the above-described land to defendant in error T. B. Mathews for a period of five years, beginning January 1, 1917, for a consideration of $ 150, to be paid $ 30 on December 31, 1917, and $ 30 on December 31st of each succeeding year.

¶5 The petition alleged the execution of the leases above referred to. That Johnson Groves, a the time of the execution of the A. T. Ingram lease, was indebted to Ingram in the sum of approximately $ 500. That said lease was given to Ingram to secure said indebtedness, and not as an absolute five-year lease, but was subject to be canceled upon the payment of the indebtedness. That Johnson Groves had paid $ 250 on said indebtedness, leaving a balance of $ 251.41. That he had obtained further credits from Ingram amounting to approximately $ 83, which at the time of bringing this action left a balance due Ingram in the sum of $ 334. The petition alleged that Johnson Groves had offered to pay Ingram said sum of $ 334 and demanded the cancellation of the lease. It also alleges the execution of the lease to T. B. Mathews, and that the lease from Johnson Groves to T. B. Matthews is in full force and effect, and that Mathews is entitled to the possession of the premises.

¶6 The answer, in addition to a general denial, specifically denies that Mathews has any interest in the land. and alleges that Johnson Groves, prior to the commencement of this action, sold the land to one Julius Phillips, who is the owner of the property, and that the plaintiffs have no right to litigate the validity of defendant's lease.

¶7 The plaintiff in error very ably argues four assignments of error, which it win not be necessary to specifically set out.

¶8 In the brief of the defendants in error they first present the judgment of the court; that they have complied with it, and plaintiff in error has accepted the fruits of the judgment: They move this court to dismiss the appeal because the questions presented have become moot. We are compelled to agree with the contentions of the defendants in error.

¶9 On the trial of the case the plaintiff in error testified in part as follows:

"By the Court: Wait a minute. I want to find out how much you claim to be that Johnson Groves owes you. A. Well, just up to the 1st of January--By the Court: I mean now--I mean in other words, if I should hold that this is a mortgage I would want to know what that contract was--I mean what he owed you secured by this if it was a mortgage. A. His original note was $ 251 and an additional sum I furnished him last year but I haven't got it in that. I suppose if I was asked the account it would be what he actually owed at this time, By the Court. Well, what is that? A. After allowing credit for this last year he would owe $ 70. By the Court: How much? A. It would be that but if the lease would be canceled it would be a $ 40 credit you see we gave him credit for $ 40 last year, leaving a total now of $ 71.80. By the Court: That he owes you now? A. Yes, sir. By the Court: All right."

¶10 At the close of the trial of the case, which occurred on the 23rd day of April, 1918, the court announced its findings or fact and conclusions as follows:

"By the Court: I find from the evidence in this case that during the year 1916 the plaintiff executed a lease on the land in dispute to the defendant for a period of five years at the rate of $ 40 per year, this amount to be applied on an indebtedness then due by the plaintiff to the defendant and at this time the plaintiff requested the defendant not to put the lease on record. I find that subsequent to this the plaintiff executed a lease on the same land to the other plaintiff, Mathews. I further find from the evidence that at the time the lease from the plaintiff to the defendant was executed that it was the intention of the parties that it was executed to secure the payment of a debt then due by the plaintiff to the defendant, with the understanding that the payment or the said debt was what the defendant was after and that the instrument, though a lease upon his place, was intended as a mortgage. I conclude from the above finding of facts that Mr. Ingram, the defendant, was entitled to the possession of the place for the year 1917 and that the plaintiff should have credit on his indebtedness for $ 40 for that year's rental and that, with this credit, the plaintiff is now indebted to the defendant in the sum of $ 71 and upon payment of which the lease from Groves to Ingram win be canceled and set aside. To all of which the defendant excepts and also the plaintiff excepts."

¶11 On the 27th day of May, 1918, the motion of Ingram for a new trial was overruled, and the court made the following order:

"Now, on this 27th day of May, 1918, the motion of the defendant for a new trial duly comes on to be heard and the court does order that the same be overruled, to which order the defendant excepts and in open court gives notice of his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment and order overruling his motion for a new trial, and the court directs the clerk of the court to enter such notice of his intention to appeal upon the trial docket of the court and the defendant prays an extension of time to make and serve his case-made on appeal and to be allowed to supersede the judgment so far as the same cancels his lease, which is granted, and the court for good cause shown allows the defendant 60 days from this date within which to make and serve his case-made on appeal, the plaintiffs to have ten days for suggestion of amendments and the same to be settled on five days' notice, and the court does order that the portion of the judgment canceling the defendant's lease from the date thereof be superseded pending the appeal provided the defendant within 20 days from this date gives a supersedeas bond in the sum of $ 500 and file his petition in error in the Supreme Court within 120 days."

¶12 Thereafter, and on June 12, 1918, the following journal entry of judgment was filed in the office of the court clerk:

"Decree.

"Now on this 23rd day of April, 1918, this cause coming on to be heard, the plaintiffs appearing in person and by their attorneys and the defendant appearing in person and by his attorney and both parties announced ready for trial and the court, after hearing the evidence, arguments of counsel and being fully advised in the premises upon due consideration finds: That during the year 1916, the plaintiff, Groves, executed a lease on the land in dispute to the defendant, Ingram for the period of five years at the rate lease contract heretofore executed by the...