Marshall v. Homier

• Decision Date: 10 September 1903
• Citation: 13 Okla. 264,1903 OK 84,74 P. 368
• Parties: MARY E. MARSHALL AND REUBEN MARSHALL v. MARY HOMIER AND HENRY HOMIER.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1903 OK 84

74 P. 368

13 Okla. 264

MARY E. MARSHALL AND REUBEN MARSHALL v. MARY HOMIER AND HENRY HOMIER.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 10, 1903

Syllabus

¶0 1. INJUNCTION--Dissolved, When. Where in an action for an injunction, the alleged contemplated injury is such as can be fully compensated in money damages, and the defendants are wholly and unquestionably solvent, a temporary injunction should not be granted, and where granted upon proper motion should be dissolved, and the plaintiffs left to their adequate remedy for damages.

2. PETITION--Held Good, When. In the absence of a demurrer or motion, unless there is a total omission to allege some material fact which is essential, upon an objection to the introduction of any evidence, the petition will be held good.

3. EVIDENCE--Objection to Introduction of. In the absence of a demurrer or motion upon an objection to the introduction of evidence, the court should take into consideration all of the pleadings filed in the case, the answer and reply as well as the petition, and if from all the pleadings the court can find that there is a cause of action in favor of the plaintiffs, the objection should be overruled.

4. GROWING CROPS--Title Passes, When. In the absence of a reservation, the title to the growing and unmatured crops upon lands conveyed by warranty deed passes with the land, under the statutes of this territory.

5. MISTAKE--Must be Material. A mistake to warrant relief in equity must be material, and without fault or negligence on the part of the party seeking relief.

6. SAME--Action for Will Lie, When. An action in equity will lie by the grantor to reform a deed to real estate in this territory, where by agreement the growing and unmatured crops were to be reserved, and such reservation is left out of the deed by mutual mistake.

An action by plaintiff in error against defendant in error in the district court of Kingfisher county to reform a deed. Trial and judgment for defendant in error. Motion for new trial overruled, and exception by plaintiff in error, who brings the case here upon petition for review.

June, 1903, Decided

Error from the District Court of Kingfisher County; before C. F. Irwin, Trial Judge.

Bradley & Bradley, for plaintiffs in error.

Noffsinger & Hinch, for defendants in error.

BEAUCHAMP, J.:

¶1 The plaintiffs in error filed their petition in the district court of Kingfisher county on the 11th day of June, 1900, praying the reformation of a deed, and for an injunction. The facts alleged in the petition so far as are necessary for consideration in this case, are:

"That on the 22nd day of March, 1900, the said plaintiffs were the owners in fee simple of, and in possession of, and entitled to the possession of, the following described real estate, situated in the county of Kingfisher and Territory of Oklahoma, to-wit; the northeast quarter of section seven in township seventeen, north of range seven, west, together with all the crops standing, being and growing thereon, and the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto appertaining, and that on said 22nd day of March, 1900, the said Mary E. Marshall and Reuben Marshall, husband and wife, conveyed by warranty deed to said defendant, Mary Hornier, the said premises, save and except all the wheat crop, potato crop and fruit crop then being and growing on said premises; that said Mary Hornier and Henry Hornier are husband and wife, and it was agreed between the said plaintiffs and the said defendants, on said 22nd day of March, 1900, in consideration of the sale of said premises by said plaintiffs to said defendant, Mary Homier, that said plaintiffs would reserve the said crops above mentioned, and through misunderstanding and by mistake the reservation of said plaintiffs of said crops was left out of said deed. The said plaintiffs, believing that said reservation of said crops to said plaintiffs was in said deed at the time of the execution thereof, signed the same, and said deed ought to be reformed so as to reserve said crops to said plaintiffs.

"That at the time of the execution of said deed one William Anderson, a tenant of said plaintiffs, had and now has about sixty acres of wheat standing and growing on said premises, of which wheat said Anderson was to receive two-thirds and said plaintiffs were to receive one-third, measured in the half bushel at the time of the threshing thereof, and said plaintiffs were to pay said Anderson five cents a bushel for threshing their one-third of said wheat crop.

"That said plaintiffs have and own on said premises, now standing, being and growing, about twenty acres of wheat; that all of said wheat is about ripe and ready to harvest.

"That said plaintiffs have also on said premises, now standing, being and growing, a fruit crop and a potato crop, being of the value of about twenty dollars ($ 20); that the value of plaintiffs' interest in said wheat crop is about four hundred dollars ($ 400); that the aggregate value of plaintiffs' interest in and to said crop is $ 420.

"That the said defendants now claim all of said grain, fruit and potatoes and threaten to take the same and convert the same to their own use, and that said defendants are wholly insolvent and irresponsible and will, unless enjoined and restrained by this court, take and convert said property to their own use, and said plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury thereby and have no adequate remedy at law. And the plaintiffs' injuries are not susceptible of adequate compensation in damages, and said defendants and each of them are now threatening to and will, unless enjoined by the order of this court, convert said property, the crops mentioned, to their own use.

"Wherefore, the plaintiffs pray that the said defendants and each of them be enjoined and restrained from in any manner interfering with the said plaintiffs' right to and possession of said crops hereinbefore mentioned, and that on the final hearing of this cause said injunction be made perpetual, and that said plaintiffs be adjudged the owners of and entitled to the possession of said crops, and that said deed be corrected and reformed so as to reserve said crops as hereinbefore stated, to plaintiffs, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem lawful and equitable, and that said defendants pay the costs of this action."

¶2 On the same day, the district judge being absent from the county, application was made, and a temporary injunction granted by the judge of the probate court of Kingfisher county. On the 21st day of June, 1900, the defendants filed in the district court a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction granted by the probate judge, and on the same day the defendants filed an answer to the petition of the plaintiffs, alleging first a general denial of the allegations set forth in the plaintiffs' petition, and second, denying that they were insolvent, and admitting the purchase of the tract of land in question by Henry Hornier from Mary E. Marshall, and the execution of the deed with her warranty that the same was clear from all encumbrance, and without reservation, and that Reuben Marshall joined in said deed as the husband of Mary E. Marshall; that the title to said real estate prior the conveyance was in Mary E. Marshall, but that Mary Homier is now the owner of said real estate, and in the possession thereof. On July 2, 1900, the motion to dissolve the injunction came on before the district judge at his chambers in El Reno, which injunction after hearing thereof was by him dissolved, and exceptions saved by the plaintiffs. On April 15, 1902, the cause came regularly on for trial in the district court, and the plaintiffs offered a witness in their behalf; thereupon the defendants objected to the introduction of any testimony on the alleged ground that there was a defect of parties, and that the petition of plaintiffs failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants; which objection the court sustained, and to which ruling of the court the plaintiffs at the time duly excepted. Thereupon the plaintiffs, refusing to proceed further, the court rendered judgment against the plaintiffs for costs, to which judgment the plaintiffs duly excepted. Motion for new trial was filed and argued, which was by the court overruled, and exceptions saved by the plaintiffs.

¶3 Upon the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, affidavits and oral testimony were heard by the judge, and are incorporated in the record. The evidence shows clearly that the defendants are solvent, and are amply able to answer in damages for any sum that could be recovered by the plaintiffs, and the action being one for which the injury complained of by plaintiffs can be fully compensated in damages, the order of the judge dissolving the temporary injunction was clearly right. Where the alleged contemplated injury is such as can be fully compensated in money damages, and the defendants are wholly and unquestionably solvent and responsible, a temporary injunction should not be granted; and where a temporary injunction is granted upon proper motion it should be dissolved, and the plaintiff left to his remedy by an action for damages, which under the circumstances is adequate. It is well settled that an injunction should not be granted or allowed where there is a full and adequate remedy at law.

¶4 As will be observed the petition reasonably and sufficiently states the agreements of plaintiffs and defendants that the plaintiffs should reserve the crops then growing upon the land in question, and that through misunderstanding and by mistake the reservation of the crops was left out of the deed, and the plaintiffs believed that said reservation of the crops to the plaintiffs was in the deed at the time of the execution thereof. The answer of the defendants admits the allegations as to the execution of the deed, and alleges that the same was a warranty deed with...