King v. Antrim Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 11 December 1917 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 8274 |
Citation | 1917 OK 589,70 Okla. 52,172 P. 958 |
Parties | KING v. ANTRIM LUMBER CO. et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Deeds--Conveyance of Title--Delivery.
Where a deed is made without consideration to an infant of tender years not of kin to the grantor, and placed by the grantor upon record, and after the deed is recorded it is returned to the grantor and never delivered to the grantee or any one for her, and the intention of the grantor in making the deed was not to pass title to the grantee, but to place the property where it could not be reached for a legal liability of the grantor, and the possession of the property continuously remained in the grantor, there was not such a delivery of the deed as necessary to convey title thereby to the grantee, and such infant is not entitled to recover such property of such grantor.
2. Equity--Deeds--Relief--Clean Hands.
Where a deed is executed and placed on record by a grantor for the purpose alone of placing the property beyond the reach of his creditors, and such deed is not delivered by the grantor to the grantee or any one for her, but is surreptitiously taken by and is in her possession, and the grantor brings action praying for the removal of the cloud created by such deed upon such property, and for the cancellation of the deed and record thereof, equity will deny such relief for the reason that the grantor does not come into court "with clean hands," and therefore "equity leaves him where it finds him."
Error from District Court, Washita County; Thomas A. Edwards, Judge.
Action by the Antrim Lumber Company to foreclose a mechanic's lien against W. B. King and Minnie Zschornack in which Minnie Zschornack was permitted to interplead, with answer and cross-petition by W. B. King to the petition of intervention, and in which the Antrim Lumber Company by demurrer to the evidence was eliminated from the case. Judgment for intervener quieting her title against defendant King, his motion for a new trial overruled, and he brings error. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss the intervention and the cross-action.
A. M. Beets, for plaintiff in error.
Richard A. Billups, for defendants in error.
¶1 This action was brought by the Antrim Lumber Company to foreclose a mechanic's lien on lots described in the petition against the defendant W. B. King and Minnie Zschornack, alleging that the title to said property was in Minnie Zschornack, but that transfer from the defendant King to Minnie Zschornack was void as being without consideration. Thereafter R. Brett, as amicus curiae, filed motion to make Minnie Zschornack a party to the cause. Minnie Zschornack was permitted to interplead and set up her rights in said cause; the important part of said interplea being as follows:
¶2 W. B. King filed his answer and cross-action to the petition of intervention filed by the interpleader, Minnie Zschornack; the material averments of said amended answer and cross-action being as follows:
¶3 Wherefore said defendant prays that the deed heretofore executed by the said W. B. King to the said Minnie Zschornack be set aside, canceled, and held for naught, and his title quieted against the said Minnie Zschornack; or that the court declare the said Minnie Zschornack to hold the title in trust for the said defendant W. B. King, and for such other and further relief as the court may deem the defendant entitled to in law and equity.
¶4 To said amended answer and cross-action the interpleader, Minnie Zschornack, filed a general denial. The Antrim Lumber Company, by demurrer to its evidence, was eliminated from the case, and the trial of the case proceeded upon the issue joined between the interpleader, Minnie Zschornack, and W. B. King.
¶5 The material evidence is that W. B. King was a single man and owned the property in litigation; that the mother of Minnie Zschornack was keeping house for him; that Minnie was then a little girl about six years old; and that King got into some difficulty regarding a suit which he had against some parties, and fearing the result of the litigation executed a deed to the little girl, and placed the deed on record; that after the deed was recorded it was returned to King and remained in his possession for several years, and never was delivered to the interpleader; that King married the interpleader's mother and the interpleader lived with King and his wife; that thereafter trouble arose between the parties, and the interpleader took the deed from King's possession without his knowledge and left home; that King continued to remain in possession of the property, paid the taxes thereon, and received the rents; that he made improvements from time to time, which he paid for; that said King about the time of the execution of the deed informed the interpleader that he was deeding the property in controversy to her; that subsequently when the interpleader...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Marietta
...deed does not take effect or operate to pass title until it is delivered." Belky v. Terrell, 93 Okla. 134, 219 P. 887; King v. Antrim Lumber Co., 70 Okla. 52, 172 P. 958. ¶37 In the syllabus of the case of Hankins v. Williamsburg City Fire Ins. Co. (Kan.) 96 Kan. 706, 153 P. 491, it is stat......
-
Noble v. Johnson
...P. 245; Trawick v. Sabin, 128 Okla. 137, 261 P. 916; McLain v. Okla. Cotton Growers' Ass'n, 125 Okla. 264, 258 P. 269; King v. Antrim Lbr. Co., 70 Okla. 52, 172 P. 958. The principle and rule of law announced in the cited cases is well established, and the question to be determined under th......
-
French v. Ayres
...155, 95 P. 757; Taylor v. Harkins et al., 74 Okla. 206, 178 P. 117; Jameson v. Goodwin et al., 66 Okla. 146, 170 P. 241; King v. Antrim Lbr. Co., 70 Okla. 52, 172 P. 958; Shaffer v. Smith et al., 53 Okla. 352, 156 P. 1188. ¶21 Defendant makes the further contention that by reason of the qui......
-
Schatz v. Wintersteen
...of delivery. In support of this contention she cites the cases of Belky v. Terrell, 93 Okla. 134, 219 P. 887; and King v. Antrim Lumber Co., 70 Okla. 52, 172 P.2d 958. These cases hold that the mere recording of a deed will not constitute a delivery where the evidence shows that the intenti......