Matthews v. Rucker

• Decision Date: 22 January 1918
• Docket Number: 8398.
• Citation: 170 P. 492,67 Okla. 218,1918 OK 29
• Parties: MATTHEWS, State Commissioner of Charities and Corrections, v. RUCKER et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

170 P. 492

67 Okla. 218, 1918 OK 29

MATTHEWS, State Commissioner of Charities and Corrections, v. RUCKER et al.

No. 8398.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Jan. 22, 1918

Syllabus by the Court.

A section of the statute must be construed so as to give effect, if possible, to the entire section, rendering every word, phrase, and clause operative.

In an action instituted by the commissioner of charities and corrections, as next friend for a defective person, to cancel guardian's deed, quiet title, and recover possession of real estate, the petition failing to allege the defective was an inmate of a public institution maintained and operated by the state, county, city, or municipality, did not state a cause of action, and was subject to demurrer.

The authority given the commissioner of charities and corrections, under section 1, chap. 25, Sess. Laws 1911, to appear as next friend and prosecute an action for defectives is limited to such persons as are inmates of a public institution maintained and operated by the state, county city, or municipality.

Error from District Court, Rogers County; W. J. Campbell, Judge.

Action by Wm. D. Matthews, Commissioner of Charities and Corrections in and for the State of Oklahoma, as next friend of Liddy Bateman, an incompetent and defective, against F. M. Rucker and another. Demurrer to petition sustained, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

W. T Hunt, of Muskogee, for plaintiff in error.

Adams & Wills, of Claremore, for defendants in error.

OWEN J.

This action was begun by the plaintiff in error, commissioner of charities and corrections, in the district court of Rogers county, to cancel a guardian's deed, quiet title, and recover possession of real estate belonging to Liddy Bateman, an incompetent and defective. The lower court sustained a demurrer to the petition. This proceeding is to reverse the judgment sustaining the demurrer.

The proceeding presents but one question necessary for determination. Is the petition defective because it fails to allege that Liddy Bateman is an inmate of a public institution?

It is insisted on the part of the plaintiff in error that authority to maintain the action is given under section 1, chap. 25, S. L. 1911, in the following language:

"The commissioner of charities and corrections shall have the power, and it shall be his or her duty to appear as 'next friend' for all minor orphans, defectives, dependents, and

...