McNee v. Hart
| Decision Date | 27 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 16582. |
| Citation | 246 P. 373,117 Okla. 220,1926 OK 413 |
| Parties | McNEE v. HART et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The question of jurisdiction is primary and fundamental in every case, and cannot be waived by the parties or overlooked by the court. It is the bounden duty of the court to examine into its jurisdiction, whether raised by any party or not and "sua sponte" to determine its own jurisdiction.
Plaintiff brought an action in Oklahoma county to quiet his title to land in that county against certain defendants who claimed interests in that land only. In the same suit the plaintiff sought to quiet his title to land in Garvin county against certain defendants who claimed no interest in the Oklahoma county land. Held, that the court had no jurisdiction over the Garvin county branch of the controversy.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Wm. H. Zwick, Judge.
Action by George A. McNee against Walter L. Hart and others to remove a cloud from title. Judgment sustaining motions by various defendants to require the plaintiff to separately state and number his causes of action as to each defendant and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Twyford & Smith and Leo G. Mann, all of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
H. G Butts, of Houston, Tex., S. J. Goodwin, of Stratford, A. F Pyeatt, of Pauls Valley, and H. W. Harris, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.
This suit was instituted in the district court of Oklahoma county by the plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, against Walter L. Hart et al., defendants in error, as defendants, to remove cloud from title on various tracts of land. The record discloses that there were 94 persons named as defendants, and that the lands involved consist of one town lot in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma county, and 43 separate and distinct tracts of land in Garvin county. The petition alleges that plaintiff "is the owner in fee simple, and holds legal title to certain real estate hereinafter described, and is in the exclusive, adverse, complete, and undisturbed possession thereof," followed by a description of the lot in Oklahoma City, and 43 tracts of land in Garvin county, and further alleged that "defendants, and each of them, claim some right, title, interest, and estate in and to the above-described real estate," etc., and closes with the ordinary prayer found in petitions praying for the removal of cloud from title.
To this petition the defendants, who were served, each filed a separate motion asking that the court require the plaintiff to separately state and number his causes of action in so far as it may affect this defendant, and because this defendant is the owner of, or has an interest in, the title to certain of the lands in plaintiff's petition described, but that he has no community of interest in any of said lands with any of the other defendants herein, and does not derive his title thereto from a common source with either of said defendants, and that the land in which this defendant is interested is located in Garvin county, Okl., and that he is not in any way interested in the real property described in plaintiff's petition located in Oklahoma county, and does not have at this time, nor has he ever had, or claimed, any right, title, interest, or estate in said Oklahoma county property, and that plaintiff has a separate cause of action against this defendant, separate and apart from any action plaintiff may have against the codefendants.
Similar motions were filed by each of the defendants, and the defendant R. R. Odom attached to his motion, and makes the same a part thereof, a letter written by Leo G. Mann, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff, George A. McNee, addressed to B. B. Ralph, Kansas City, Mo., which discloses that the attorney, Mann, was making a specialty of clearing tax titles to lands in this state, and particularly in Garvin county, and, among other things, states:
It is evident from the letter, which is of considerable length, that it at least had reference to litigations similar to the litigation here involved. It refers to the fact that the writer of the letter has secured a large number of corrected tax deeds in Garvin county. We do not regard the letter as necessarily being competent evidence of any facts involved in this lawsuit, but no motion to strike or objections were made to attaching the letter to the motion, hence we consider it worthy of consideration, and that it throws some light on the questions here involved. The trial court sustained the various motions. Plaintiff elected to stand on his pleadings, and appeals.
Appellant relies upon section 200, C. S. 1921, which reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial