Jones v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 25 January 1916
• Docket Number: Case Number: 4905
• Citation: 154 P. 1139,55 Okla. 24,1916 OK 107
• Parties: JONES v. THOMPSON et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1916 OK 107

154 P. 1139

55 Okla. 24

JONES v. THOMPSON et al.

Case Number: 4905

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: January 25, 1916

Syllabus

¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR -- Continuance -- Discretionary Ruling. The granting or refusing of a continuance on account of the absence of counsel is a matter of discretion with the trial court, and, unless it appears that such discretion was abused to the prejudice of the substantial rights of a litigant, the action of such court will not be disturbed upon appeal.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR--Review-- Weight of Evidence--Fraud--Equity. While the rule prevails in this jurisdiction that in cases of purely equitable cognizance it is within the power of this court to consider the entire record, weigh the evidence, and, where the judgment of the trial court is clearly against the weight of the evidence, to render or cause to be rendered such judgment as should have been awarded by the trial court, yet the doctrine is equally well established that where fraud is relied upon as a basis for equitable relief, and the trial court, after hearing the evidence, finds that fraud has not established, this court will not disturb such findings, unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence.

Harris & Nowlin and Burford, Robertson & Hoffman, for plaintiff in error.

William Blake and Burwell, Crockett & Johnson, for defendants in error.

BLEAKMORE, C.

¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Pawnee county by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, seeking the cancellation of certain written instruments on the ground that at the time of the execution thereof plaintiff had been stupefied by some drug surreptitiously administered by one of the defendants, which rendered her mentally incapacitated to understand and appreciate the nature of the transaction, and, while her faculties were thus impaired, she was fraudulently induced to execute such instrument. The plaintiff, a woman 65 years of age, was the owner of 155 acres of land in what is known as the Cleveland oil field in Pawnee county, which she had theretofore leased to the Minnetonka Oil Company for a royalty of one-eighth of the oil; such royalty, from three wells, having for some five years afforded her an average monthly income of about $ 50, and for the month of March, 1912, $ 114. The land was practically valueless for agricultural purposes. An oil well then being drilled to a deeper sand on an adjoining tract was producing a large amount of gas and spraying some oil. On March 19, 1912, while plaintiff was visiting her daughter, who resided on the land involved, the defendant E. M. Thompson, a physician, called upon her there and offered $ 500 for an option to purchase a one-half interest in said land and royalty; such option to be exercised within nine months by the payment of an additional sum of $ 3,500. Plaintiff declined to enter into any contract at the time, stating that she desired to consult her children in regard to the matter. She and defendant Thompson had some conversation over the phone that night or the following morning relative to such proposition; she still refusing to make any agreement for the sale of the property. On the next day defendant Thompson again called upon her at the same place, stating that he was on his way to see an oil well upon the adjoining tract, and asking her to be ready upon his return to accompany him to the town of Cleveland, where they both resided. He came back from the well, and the plaintiff went with him to said town. Defendant took her to his home, where she ate dinner and thereafter executed to the defendant Emma M. Thompson, the wife of the doctor, in consideration of $ 500 cash, a contract for the conveyance of an undivided one-half interest in said land and the royalties therefrom, to be executed and delivered at any time within 9 months upon the payment to her of an additional sum of $ 3,500; and also a deed to such one-half interest in said land and royalties, which it was agreed should be placed in escrow to be delivered upon the payment to the plaintiff of said additional sum within a period prescribed. The instruments were prepared by one Stanley Edmister, a lawyer and notary public, who resided at Cleveland. At the Thompson home at the time of the execution of said instruments were the plaintiff, the defendants Dr. Thompson and his wife, a Mrs. Moore, who, on account of the illness of Mrs. Thompson, had been called in to prepare the meals and perform the general household duties, her daughter, a child of about 11 years, and StanleyEdmister, who arrived at about the time the others had concluded the noon meal and who brought with him the contract and conveyance, which he had previously prepared. Shortly after eating dinner plaintiff signed said instruments and received a check for $ 500 from Mrs. Thompson, and also copies of the instruments. Edmister then retired, taking with him the original instruments to be deposited in escrow, and the doctor also left, ostensibly to see a patient. Thereafter, about 3 o'clock, he returned and took the plaintiff in his buggy to the bank, upon which the check was drawn, where she alighted from the buggy, entered the bank, indorsed and deposited the check, and received a passbook, upon which she was given credit therefor, and was driven by the doctor to her home in the town of Cleveland. The contract and deed were placed in escrow in the bank by Edmister. On March 27th, seven days thereafter, plaintiff went to the office of the defendant Dr. Thompson and informed him that she had previously executed deeds to the land in question conveying 80 acres thereof to her daughter, Mrs. Kinney, and 80 acres thereof to another daughter, Mrs. Newman, who at the time had reconveyed the same to her, and that their conveyances were in the possession of a Mr. Gilbert for her whenever she desired them. Whereupon the following instrument was prepared, which plaintiff dictated and acknowledged and signed:

"STATEMENT OF JULIA A. JONES CONCERNING HOMESTEAD.

"Section twenty, Township twenty-one (21), Range eight (8), East I. M., in Pawnee county, Oklahoma, containing 155 acres. The west half (W. 1/2) of the said land was deeded to Grace L. Kinney and the east half (E. 1/2) to Virgie A. Newman. The object, an assignment for protection. It was for a protection of an enormous attorney fee. They gave me a deed which is in escrow with Mr. Gilbert. This was to prevent the collection of what I considered an unjust claim for attorney fee. I did not make this as a transfer of my interest, only for that reason. It was understood by the girls that I held the ownership of the land, while they held the naked legal title, and for my protection the girls made deeds back to me, which are with Mr. Gilbert and which I was to have the privilege of securing for the purpose of placing on record at any time. Mr. Gilbert understanding this and I trusting him fully in the matter.

"JULIA A. JONES."

"Witnesses:

"BERTA ARNETT.

"S. C. EDMISTER.

"State of Oklahoma, County of Pawnee, ss.

"Before me, Berta Arnett. a notary public, in and for said county and state on this 27th day of March, 1912, personally appeared Julia A. Jones, to me known to be the identical person who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that she executed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein set forth.

"Witness my hand and notarial seal the day and year last above written.

"[Seal]

BERTA ARNETT, Notary Public.

"My commission expires March 21, 1915."

¶2 Immediately...