Lowrey v. Le Flore
Decision Date | 15 June 1915 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 4650 |
Citation | 48 Okla. 235,1915 OK 457,149 P. 1112 |
Parties | LOWREY v. LE FLORE. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION--"Children." Ordinarily, the word "children" means the immediate offspring, and does not include "grandchildren."
2. SAME. The word "children," as used in subdivision 3 of section 8418, Rev. Laws 1910, which provides that, if there be no issue, nor husband, nor wife, nor father, nor mother, the estate of an intestate descends in equal shares to the brothers and sisters of the decedent, and to the children of any deceased brother or sister, by right of representation, does not include grandchildren of a deceased brother or sister of the intestate.
Error from District Court, Le Flore County; W. H. Brown, Judge.
Action by S. Lee Lowrey against Mack H. Le Flore. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Hale & Lunsford and White & Du Bois, for plaintiff in error.
Jones & Lester, for defendant in error.
¶1 This case comes here on appeal from Le Flore county, and involves a question of inheritance, and thereby, a construction of the laws of succession and distribution in this state.
¶2 The record shows that the plaintiff in error, S. Lee Lowery, commenced this action in the district court of Le Flore county, alleging that he was the owner of an undivided one-eighth interest in certain real estate in that county, and that the defendant in error, Mack H. Le Flore, claimed to be the sole and only owner of said entire property. And plaintiff prayed to have the title to said one-eighth interest in said real estate settled and quieted in him. The plaintiff claims title by conveyance from Kizzie Woods, who was the grandniece of Mary Le Flore, the deceased owner of the land, as will be hereinafter fully explained. The defendant answered, denying title in plaintiff, and prayed that title to the entire tract be settled and quieted in himself as the sole and only heir of said Mary Le Flore. A copy of the deed from Kizzie Woods to plaintiff is attached to the petition and is not questioned.
¶3 On the trial of the case the parties entered into an agreed statement of facts, which includes all the evidence, and is as follows:
¶4 From the foregoing agreed statement of facts we find that Mary Le Flore, a full-blood Choctaw Indian, died intestate in 1911. At the time of her death she was the owner of certain real estate in Le Flore county, Okla., and had no father, no mother, no husband, no sister, no brother living, and no issue. She had one brother, Wallace Le Flore, who died in 1864. Wallace Le Flore had two children: First, Mack H. Le Flore, this defendant, now living; second, Lizzie Holson, a daughter, who died in 1910. Kizzie Woods is a daughter of Lizzie Holson, and a granddaughter of Wallace Le Flore, who was the brother of Mary Le Flore. The plaintiff herein is the grantee of Kizzie Woods, and therefore the owner of any interest that said Kizzie Woods might have had in the real estate owned by Mary Le Flore at the time of her death. In other words, the plaintiff herein, S. Lee Lowrey, is the grantee of Kizzie Woods, who is the daughter of Lizzie Holson, deceased, who was the daughter of Wallace Le Flore, deceased, who was the brother of Mary Le Flore, deceased, who was the owner of the land in controversy at the time of her death.
¶5 From the foregoing facts we have squarely presented the question whether the defendant, Mack H. Le Flore, the nephew and nearest of kin of Mary Le Flore, became the sole and only heir and owner of her estate, or did Kizzie Woods, the child of Mack's deceased sister, inherit through her mother, Lizzie Holson? The trial court concluded, as a matter of law, and we think correctly, that Mack H. Le Flore was the only heir, and that, Kizzie Woods not being a child of a brother or sister of the intestate ( a niece), but a grandniece, she was not an heir, and did not inherit. The law of succession and distribution involved herein is found in subdivisions 3, 4, and 6 of section 8418, Rev. Laws Okla. 1910, Ann., as follows:
¶6 The third subdivision covers this case, and provides:
"If there be no issue, husband, wife, father nor mother, then * * * to the children of any deceased brother or sister."
¶7 What or who is meant here by the term "children"? Mack H. Le Flore is the child of Wallace Le Flore, a deceased brother of the intestate. Kizzie Woods is not a child of a brother or sister of the intestate, but a grandchild of Wallace Le Flore, the brother of the intestate, and therefore does not come within the language of the statute. Counsel for plaintiff in error contends that the term "children," as here used, is synonymous with the word "issue," and includes grandchildren, and upon the same reasoning would include all descendants down the line as far as it could be traced. We do not so understand the law, nor the word as it is here used. So far as we have been able to learn, this statute has never been construed by this court, so far as it relates to the question in hand. The statute seems to have come to us from California via Dakota, and we find that the Supreme Court of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial