Muller v. McCann
Decision Date | 13 July 1915 |
Docket Number | 4978. [a1] |
Citation | 151 P. 621,50 Okla. 710 |
Parties | MULLER v. MCCANN ET AL. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The remedy subsisting in a state or territory when and where a contract is entered into and to be performed is a part of the obligation, and especially is that true when the particular remedy is agreed upon and clearly expressed in the contract and any subsequent law of such state or territory which so effects that remedy as to substantially impair and lessen the value of the contract is in violation of section 10, art. 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligations of a contract, and therefore void.
Under section 4759 of Mansfield's Digest of the Laws of the state of Arkansas, which was in force in the Indian Territory before statehood, all sales of real property under mortgages and deeds of trust for less than two-thirds of the appraised value, and within less than one year from the date of the said appraisement, are void.
Under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the state of Arkansas which were effective in the Indian Territory before statehood, it was the established rule in equity that a mortgagee of real estate, with power of sale, was not allowed to purchase the property directly or indirectly for his own benefit at such sale, and if the sale be made with fraud or partiality to the creditor, and with unfairness and oppression toward the mortgagor, and to his injury, such sale would, on proper showing, be set aside.
In such sales a person purchasing an interest in land takes with constructive notice of whatever appears in the several conveyances constituting the chain of title, and if anything including quitclaim deeds, appears in such conveyances, sufficient to put a prudent man on inquiry, which, if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of some right or title in conflict with that which he is about to purchase, it is his duty to make inquiry, and if he does not do so, he is guilty of bad faith or neglect, and the law will charge him with the actual notice he would have received, if he had made it, and in such case he would not be entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4. Error from District Court, Pittsburg County; W. C. Liedtke, Judge.
Action by H. J. Muller against Madeline McCann, née Guillaume, and another. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.
Wm. S. Rogers and Robert N. McMillen, both of McAlester, for plaintiff in error.
W. J. Horton and R. A. Smith, both of McAlester, for defendants in error.
This action was originally filed in the superior court of Pittsburg county, Okl., on the 12th day of September, 1911, and was thereafter, upon the abolishment of that court, transferred by operation of law to the district court of Pittsburg county, Okl. The action is to set aside a mortgage foreclosure deed, and also conveyance to second grantee, who claims to be a bona fide purchaser. The case was decided on general demurrers to the petition. In order to get a full understanding of the case, we submit the pleadings.
The allegations of plaintiff's petition are, in substance, as follows:
(1) That the defendant Madeline McCann is the same person as Madeline Guillaume hereinafter referred to, the said Madeline Guillaume having married McCann.
(2) That on the 2d day of August, 1907, the plaintiff was the owner of lot 8 in block 324, South McAlester, Ind. T., now McAlester, Okl., and on said date executed to defendant Madeline McCann a mortgage covering said property to secure the payment of a note in the sum of $1,000, payable to said defendant. Said mortgage is in words and figures as follows:
(3) That on or about the 31st day of August, 1909, defendant McCann declared said debt under said mortgage due, and gave notice that she would, on the 21st day of September, 1909, sell said property under the power and terms of said mortgage for the purpose of satisfying said debt. Said notice was made a part of plaintiff's amended petition, and is in the words and figures following, to wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
E. J. Lander & Co. v. Deemy
...v. Lightcap, supra. See also Hollister v. Donahoe, 11 S.D. 497, 78 N.W. 959; Paris v. Nordburg, 6 Kan.App. 260, 51 P. 799; Muller v. McCann, 50 Okla. 710, 151 P. 621; Solis v. Williams, 205 Mass. 350, 91 N.E. 148. courts have held that a statute which alters the rights of the mortgagor and ......
-
First National Bank of Turtle Lake, a Corp. v. Bovey, Shute & Jackson, Inc., a Corp.
...Am. St. Rep. 932, 50 P. 489; Hollister v. Donahoe, 11 S.D. 497, 78 N.W. 959; Paris v. Nordburg, 6 Kan.App. 260, 51 P. 799; Muller v. McCann, 50 Okla. 710, 151 P. 621; Turk v. Mayberry, 32 Okla. 66, 121 P. In Bradley v. Lightcap, supra, opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, it was said: "Conf......