Manuel v. Kidd
| Decision Date | 26 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 16264 |
| Citation | 258 P. 732,126 Okla. 71,1927 OK 222 |
| Parties | MANUEL v. KIDD et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error--County Court as Court of Record--Probate Jurisdiction--Presumptions to Sustain Judgments. County courts of this state are courts of record and have original general jurisdiction in probate matters. The orders and judgments of such courts when acting within their jurisdiction are entitled to the same favorable presumption and the same immunity from collateral attack as are accorded orders and judgments of courts of general jurisdiction. Unless the record affirmatively shows want of jurisdiction, and every fact not negatived by the record is presumed in support of the judgment of a court of general jurisdiction, and where the record of the court is silent upon the subject, it must be presumed in support of the proceedings that the court inquired into and found the existence of facts authorizing it to render the judgment which it did. Bowling v. Merry, 91 Okla. 176, 217 P. 404.
2. Guardian and Ward--Authority of County Court to Revoke Its Order Transferring Case. Where a county court, under the provisions of section 1093, C. O. S. 1921, enters an order transferring a guardianship case, properly pending in that court, to another court, and thereafter on the same day revokes such order of transfer, held, that the court had the jurisdiction and right to revoke its order of transfer where no action or steps had been taken towards such transfer other than the entry of the order.
Frank L. Lamb and McDougal, Allen & Pryor, for plaintiff in error.
Blakemore & George and J. B. Sowder, for defendants in error.
¶1 This action was originally filed in the district court of Creek county by the defendant in error, C. C. Kidd, against the plaintiff in error, Bennie Manuel, defendant below, and Arthur C. Lucas, Nancy N. Lucas, Fred E. Gates, and Hattie E. Gates. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they appeared in the lower court.
¶2 The plaintiff, C. C. Kidd, in his petition filed in the district court of Creek county, Okla., alleged in his first cause of action, in substance, that he was the fee-simple owner of the legal title and the equitable rights and interest in, and entitled to the immediate possession of 80 acres of land located in Creek county, state of Oklahoma; that he acquired his title and right thereto under and by virtue of a certain guardian's deed, executed to him by the duly appointed, qualified, and acting guardian of the person and estate of the defendant Bennie Manuel, a minor Creek freedman, and the original allottee of said property. That said guardian's deed was duly made and executed under and by virtue of an order and confirmation of the county court of Okmulgee county, state of Oklahoma; there being attached to and made a part of the petition a copy of said guardian's deed and the allotment deed in favor of the said defendant Bennie Manuel. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants Lucas and Gates claimed some right or interest in and to the lands described under and by virtue of a tax deed, and prayed that he be adjudged the owner of the legal title in fee simple and of the equitable title in and to the lands described, free and clear of all liens, claims, or incumbrances; that the defendants be declared to have no right, title, or interest or equity, and that they be barred and enjoined from asserting or claiming any interest or estate therein, and that plaintiff's title be quieted and confirmed.
¶3 For a second cause of action plaintiff alleges that the defendant Bennie Manuel was in possession of and living upon the land described, wrongfully and unlawfully, refusing to surrender the possession thereof, and prayed for the possession of said lands. The defendants Lucas and Gates filed their answer in said cause, alleging ownership and title to the lands under and by virtue of a tax deed. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the defendant Bennie Manuel, and answer on behalf of the defendant Bennie Manuel was filed, generally denying the allegations of plaintiff's petition, except that he, the defendant, was the allottee of the lands involved, and further alleges and says that the guardian's deed set out in plaintiff's petition was void and of no force and effect for the reason that the county court of Okmulgee county never acquired or had any jurisdiction over the estate of the defendant Bennie Manuel; that he, the defendant, had never resided or had any estate within Okmulgee county; that purported jurisdiction of the county court of Okmulgee county was acquired by an order transferring or purporting to transfer said guardianship proceedings from the county court of McIntosh county, to the county court of Okmulgee county; that the county court of McIntosh county had previously transferred said guardianship proceedings to the county court of Okmulgee county, and therefore was without jurisdiction to make any further order of transfer; that the appointment of Fred DeVinna as guardian of the minor by the county court of Okmulgee county was void for the reason that no notice was given to the mother of said minor, who was the person in custody; that neither the mother nor the minors resided in Okmulgee county; that there were irregularities in said proceedings sufficient to avoid the sale which were jurisdictional; that notice to hear petition for sale was given for February 24, 1921; that upon the date of said hearing nothing further was done in said matter until April 21, 1921; that on said date an order was made which purported to continue said hearing from February 24, 1921, to April 21, 1921; that in fact no order of continuance was made on February 24, 1921; that the certain order purporting to continue said cause from February 24, 1921 to April 21, 1921, was indorsed, "Filed" April 21, 1921, as of February 24, 1921; that no notice of the hearing on April 21, 1921, was given to anyone, and that therefore the court was without jurisdiction on April 21, 1921, to make an order of sale.
¶4 For further answer defendant alleged and pleaded that all proceedings had in connection with said pretended sale of the lands and the issuance of the deed set forth in plaintiff's petition were affected and permeated with actual fraud, and therefore void, and that there things were known to plaintiff or might have been known to him had he made inquiry such as a reasonably prudent man would have made; that the facts in connection with the fraud were, in substance, that the mother of the minor received in the mail a copy of a notice to the effect that the guardian would ask the county court of Okmulgee county for an order directing him to sell the land involved, such hearing to be on the 24th day of February, 1921; that on said date she appeared before the said court in the forenoon and protested to the court against the sale of said land; that the court told her to see the guardian, which she did, and informed him that she would not consent to the sale, and did not want the land sold; that the guardian advised her to see his lawyer and tell him not to sell it, which she did, and the attorney for the guardian told her it would not be sold; that she returned to Okmulgee county where she lived, and that she did not hear or know anything further about the sale until she learned someone claimed to have bought it; that the minor, Bennie Manuel, nor his mother, knew anything about the supposed sale of the land, and was not in court when an order was made in connection therewith; that Rule 5 promulgated by the Supreme Court of this state relating to sale of lands of minors was not complied with; that the answer of the defendant Bennie Manuel further asserted he was in actual possession of said property and had been a long time prior to 1921 and prayed that plaintiff take nothing, and that his, the defendant's, title be quieted, and for equitable relief.
¶5 Upon the issues joined a trial was had before the court, and judgment rendered in said cause in favor of the plaintiff, C. C. Kidd, adjudging and decreeing him to be the owner of the fee simple title in and to the land described, and entitled to the full and complete possession of said lands, and his title thereto quieted as against each and all of the defendants, except the court directed the payment by the plaintiff to the defendants Arthur C. Lucas, Nancy N. Lucas, Fred E. Gates and Hattie E. Gates of the sum of $ 461 on account of the payment by them of certain taxes, penalties, interest, and costs, levied and assessed against the land involved in the suit, and they were decreed a lien against the land for such taxes and costs. No appeal was taken from the judgment in favor of the defendants Lucas and Gates and the same became and is final.
¶6 The defendant Bennie Manuel brings this action on appeal from the judgment of said district court and alleges and sets forth in his petition in error six specifications of error, which he discusses in his brief under five heads, which we will discuss in the order set forth in his brief, the first being "the court erred in holding that this was a collateral attack upon the judgment of the county court of Okmulgee county."
¶7 It has been repeatedly held by this court that county courts of this state have general jurisdiction in probate matters, and their orders and judgments will be accorded like force, effect, and legal presumption as other courts of general jurisdiction, and it will be presumed that all facts necessary for proper rendition of its judgments have been found to exist before judgment rendered, and where the record is regular the judgment cannot be attacked in a collateral proceeding. Bowling v. Merry, 91 Okla. 176, 217 P. 404; Johnson v. Furchtbar, 96 Okla. 114, 220 P. 612; Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okla. 277, 190 P. 681; Ross v. Alworth, 105 Okla. 155, 231 P. 885.
¶8 This court, in McIntosh v. Holtgrave, 79 Okla. 63, 191 P. 739,...
To continue reading
Request your trial