Ozark Oil Co. v. Berryhill
| Decision Date | 01 September 1914 |
| Docket Number | 5603. |
| Citation | 143 P. 173,43 Okla. 523,1914 OK 408 |
| Parties | OZARK OIL CO. v. BERRYHILL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1914.
Syllabus by the Court.
The county courts of this state are of limited jurisdiction, and have only such jurisdiction as is specifically granted by section twelve, art. 7, of the Constitution, and as is conferred by acts of the Legislature, which are in harmony with the provisions of the Constitution.
The defendant in error, while a minor, through his guardian petitioned the county court of Okmulgee county for an order permitting him to lease certain lands to plaintiff in error for the purpose of producing oil. The order was granted and the lease executed for a term of five years, and so long as oil and gas were found in paying quantities. Said lease was approved by the county court and by the Secretary of the Interior. After the ward became of age and before the expiration of said lease, he filed in his own name his petition in the county court, praying for the modification and in effect the cancellation of said lease, upon the ground that it was obtained by misrepresentations. The county court granted the relief prayed. Held, that this was not a probate proceeding, and the county court was without jurisdiction to entertain said proceedings to modify and cancel said lease and render the judgment complained of. The appeal is dismissed, with direction to the court to vacate the judgment rendered and dismiss said proceedings.
Error from County Court, Okmulgee County; W. L. Merwine, Special Judge.
Action by William Berryhill against the Ozark Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Dismissed.
Haskell B. Talley, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Wood & Witten, of Okmulgee, for defendant in error.
On the 14th day of June, 1912, defendant in error, William Berryhill, filed a petition in the county court of Okmulgee county, alleging that on the 24th day of May, 1909, he was a minor; that Harrison L. Berryhill was his guardian; that on said last-named date, his guardian filed a petition in said court for leave to lease certain oil lands described. Upon said petition an order was made, authorizing the guardian to lease said lands to the Ozark Oil Company, plaintiff in error, for a term of five years from the date of the approval thereof by the Secretary of the Interior, and as much longer thereafter as oil or gas might be found in paying quantities; that on said day the guardian made and returned his verified report of his proceedings, in which among other things, he reported that he had entered into an oil and gas mining lease with the Ozark Oil Company for a period of time expiring with the minority of said ward; that the then judge of the county court relied upon the recitals in said report, and was induced thereby to believe that said lease was in accordance with the terms of said report; that said judge was misled, deceived, and induced to sign and cause to be entered an order confirming said lease. He prayed that the order of confirmation be immediately set aside, on the following grounds: (1) That it was erroneous and not in conformity with the report of the guardian; (2) because it was fraudulently obtained; (3) for the reason that said confirmation was not the order intended to be entered by the court, and was not in fact the order of the court. To this petition, plaintiff in error filed his demurrer to the jurisdiction of the court, which demurrer was overruled. He then filed his answer. Upon the issues joined, a trial was had to the court, and on the 28th day of March, 1913 judgment was rendered, in favor of plaintiff, modifying the order theretofore entered by the court, making said order read "that said lease should run from the 24th day of March, 1909, for a period of time expiring with the minority of said ward." From this order, plaintiff in error prosecutes this appeal, seeking to review said proceedings in this court. Defendant in error has filed his motion to dismiss this proceeding, for the reason that this was an order made in a probate proceeding, and that under the Constitution and laws of this state an appeal could only be prosecuted to the district court, and that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It is undisputed that William Berryhill reached his majority on June 14, 1912. Plaintiff in error contends that the court below had no jurisdiction to...
To continue reading
Request your trial