Leonard v. Childers
| Decision Date | 09 October 1917 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 8424 |
| Citation | 170 P. 247,67 Okla. 222,1917 OK 486 |
| Parties | LEONARD v. CHILDERS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Indians -- Appointment of Guardian -- Jurisdiction of County Court.
Where the United States Court in the Indian Territory at Sapulpa appointed one B. as curator of the estate of a minor who was at the time a citizen and resident of the Osage Nation, and where said proceeding was transferred to the county court of Creek county, Okla., upon the admission of the state, in which last-named court said curator filed his final report, praying that he be discharged on the ground that said minor was in the custody of the Superintendent of the United States Agency for the Osage Indians, which report was approved, and said curator discharged and the funds in his hands turned over to said superintendent, said curatorship proceedings were finally closed, and the county court of Creek county was thereafter without jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the person and estate of said minor, who was at the time of the attempted appointment a resident of Osage county.
2. Indians--Guardianship of Minor--Findings -- Conclusions of Law.
Record examined, and held that the findings of fact are sustained by the evidence, and the conclusions of law made by the trial court are correct, and that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
Error from Superior Court, Tulsa County; M. A. Breckenridge, Judge.
Action for injunction by Nola Childers, a minor, by Lee Clinton and Daniel B. Horsley, her guardians, against O. H. Leonard. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
L. J. Martin and King & King, for plaintiff in error.
Woodson E. Norvell, Daniel B. Horsley, and L. M. Poe, for defendant in error.
¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Tulsa county by Nola Childers, a minor, as plaintiff, by her guardians, Lee Clinton and Daniel B. Horsley, against O. H. Leonard, defendant, seeking to enjoin him from interfering with the possession of plaintiff and her said guardians of certain lands described, and to restrain him from acting, or attempting to act, as plaintiff's guardian and to cancel certain orders of the county courts of Tulsa and Creek counties. The case was transferred to the superior court of Tulsa county, where trial resulted in judgment for plaintiff granting the relief prayed, from which defendant prosecutes error.
¶2 It is contended that the district court was without jurisdiction of the case, that the order transferring same to the superior court was void, and that said superior court acquired no jurisdiction in the premises. In support of this contention, counsel argue that certain sections of the Constitution and various provisions of the statutes confer exclusive probate jurisdiction upon the county courts of this state, and from this premise they conclude that the district and superior courts were without jurisdiction. The answer to his contention is that this is not a probate proceeding, but is equitable in its nature, and is a proceeding of which the county courts had no jurisdiction. Ozark Co. v. Berryhill, 43 Okla. 523, 143 P. 173; Elrod v. Adair, 54 Okla. 207, 153 P. 660. The district and superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction, possessing the powers of courts of equity to grant equitable relief in proper cases. Elrod v. Adair, supra; Brown v. Trent, 36 Okla. 239, 128 P. 895; Johnson, Adm'r, v. Filtsch et al., 37 Okla. 510, 138 P. 165. And if the petition stated facts which would entitle plaintiff to equitable relief, the district court in the first instance had jurisdiction, and when the case was transferred to the superior court that court likewise obtained jurisdiction. The petition alleges that plaintiff is the owner of certain lands situated in Tulsa county; that Lee Clinton and Daniel B. Horsley are guardians of her person and estate by virtue of certain orders of the county court of Osage county; that ever since December 25, 1913, plaintiff was over 14 years of age; that prior to April 25, 1910, the county court of Creek county had wrongfully assumed to appoint 2 guardian of her person and estate; that on said last-mentioned date a final judgment in prohibition had been entered in the district court of Creek county, perpetually enjoining said Creek county court and the judge thereof from further assuming or further attempting to exercise jurisdiction of the guardianship of her person or estate; that said judgment had never been appealed from, vacated, or modified, and is a valid and subsisting judgment; that notwithstanding the existence of said judgment, and notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff was over the age of 14 years, and with full knowledge by defendant that the county court of Osage county had and was exercising jurisdiction of the estate of plaintiff, and had long prior thereto appointed a guardian thereof, said defendant, on March 27, 1914, wrongfully and fraudulently procured the county judge of Creek county, in violation of said judgment in prohibition, to appoint said defendant guardian of plaintiff, and falsely and fraudulently represented and caused said court to find that plaintiff was 13 years of age; that said order was wrongfully and fraudulently procured; was made without notice to plaintiff or any of her next of kin, and that said defendant is a stranger to plaintiff; and that she does not desire him to act as her guardian or to represent her in any way. It is further alleged that after his appointment was procured said defendant falsely and fraudulently represented to the county judge of Creek county that plaintiff was a resident of Tulsa county, when in truth and in fact plaintiff was not and never had been a resident of such county, and that upon such representations he procured an order in violation of said judgment in prohibition, transferring said guardianship proceedings to the county court of Tulsa county; that said orders and each of them and all proceedings had in said matter in the county court of Creek county subsequent to April 25, 1910, were unwarranted and void and that said defendant is wrongfully attempting to exercise the powers of a guardian under the appointment so falsely and fraudulently procured; that he has attempted to interfere with her lawful guardians in the possession of her lands, situated in Tulsa county which are described in said petition, and has offered to rent parts thereof to various persons, and has filed a petition in the county court of Tulsa county, asking authority to sell and convey a part of said lands; that he has held himself out as plaintiff's guardian, and is now claiming to be such; that his acts as such seriously interfere with the administration of plaintiff's estate by her lawful guardians, and makes is impossible for them to proceed therewith and realize the necessary funds to protect plaintiff from a forced sale of her lands for delinquent taxes in the sum of several thousand dollars due to the state and its various subdivisions, which taxes are long past due, and which lands, or a part thereof, are imminently liable to be sold to pay said taxes; that if defendant is allowed to sell the land of plaintiff or lease the same to many different persons, as he is assuming to do, and plaintiffs lands are sold to satisfy the taxes thereon aforesaid, and if defendant is permitted to secure an order of sale from the Tulsa county court, plaintiff will be forced to bring a large number of suits to protect her title in said lands; that plaintiff has already established her title to said lands in a certain proceeding determined in the district court of Tulsa county, wherein one Ed C. Reynolds, claiming to be the guardian of plaintiff under appointment of Creek county court, of whom defendant claims to be the successor, filed his written motion, asking said court to substitute him as legal guardian of said plaintiff to prosecute said case, whereupon plaintiff's guardians filed in said case a written motion to strike the motion of said Reynolds, which upon consideration was sustained, and the court found that said Reynolds was acting without authority of law and was not the guardian of plaintiff; that plaintiff has not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, and, if the acts of defendant are permitted to continue, will cause plaintiff irreparable injury and damages; that a transcript of the proceedings had in Creek county court have been filed in the county court of Tulsa county, and the pending application of said Leonard for an order of sale and the other proceedings in said matter constitute and will hereafter constitute a cloud upon plaintiff's title to the land above described, and will greatly lessen the market value thereof. Plaintiff prays that all orders of the county court of Creek county made subsequent to April 25, 1910, and particularly the orders purporting to appoint plaintiff as her guardian and to transfer said proceedings to Tulsa county, and all other orders and proceedings had in Tulsa county, be canceled, set aside, and held for naught, and defendant be perpetually restrained and enjoined from interfering with the possession of plaintiff and her duly appointed guardians of said lands, or any other property of her said estate, and from assuming or claiming to be guardian of plaintiff or to act as such, or to attempt to sell, lease, or otherwise attempt to dispose of the property of said estate, or claiming any profits or moneys derived from such source.
¶3 It will be seen that the petition alleges that defendant is attempting to exercise authority as guardian over her person and estate under orders that are void, and that were procured by fraud, and that he is interfering with her lawful guardians in the possession of her lands, and has offered to rent the same to various persons, and is attempting to sell a part thereof; that his acts prevent her lawful guardians from administering her estate, and there is imminent...
To continue reading
Request your trial