Parker v. Lynch
Decision Date | 30 July 1898 |
Citation | 7 Okla. 631,56 P. 1082,1898 OK 76 |
Parties | JOHN W. PARKER v. JAMES W. LYNCH et al |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. JURISDICTION DEFINED. Jurisdiction is the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases. Power to hear and determine a cause. If a court has jurisdiction of the persons to the action, and the cause is the kind of a cause triable in such court, it has jurisdiction of the subject of the action and has the power to render any rightful judgment therein.
2. HOMESTEAD--Contest--Rights of Parties--Trustee. The offering to file a contest against a homestead entry, gives a party no interest in the land. By such offer, he acquires no vested right in any sense of the word. If the Land Department entertain a contest, and permit it to be filed, the party filing the same has the right to have it heard, but he has no right or interest in the land itself; and the fact that one offered a contest against a homestead entry, even though his grounds named therein were valid, and the contest should have been entertained and a hearing granted, yet if the Department rejected his contest, he, by the offering of such contest, acquired no interest whatever in the land embraced in the entry, and he cannot maintain an action to declare the patentee, who was the entryman at the time he offered his contest, a trustee, for his use and benefit.
This is an action commenced by John W. Parker, in the district court of Kay county, against James W. Lynch and the town of Ponca City, to declare a resulting trust. Judgment was rendered for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals to this court.
The original petition was filed on May 17, 1895. To this, the defendants interposed their respective demurrers on two grounds: (1) That the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action; and, (2) that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The record does not show that these demurrers were sustained to plaintiff's petition, but the sustaining of the demurrer to plaintiff's original petition is assigned as error. This court will not consider any assignment of error which is not presented by the record. It might be suggested, though, that this very question was decided by this court in the case of Kingman v. Pixley, this volume, p. 351. The court held in that case that when a demurrer is sustained to a petition, and plaintiff, after obtaining leave of court, files an amended petition, and the issues are joined thereon, and a trial had, the plaintiff, by filing his amended pleading, waives any error committed by the trial court, in sustaining such demurrer. Citing, Young, et al v. Martin, 8 Wall. 354, and Rosa v. M. K. & T. R. R. Co., 18 Kan. 124.
It is shown by the record that plaintiff obtained leave of court on August 10, 1895, to file an amended petition, which was filed in due time. The amended petition, omitting the caption and exhibits, is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Howard v. Arkansaw
... ... McDermid, 4 Okla. 272, 44 P. 276; Beach v. Beach, 4 Okla. 359, 399, 46 P. 514; Parlin v. Schram, 4 Okla. 651, 655, 46 P. 490; Parker v. Lynch et al., 7 Okla. 631, 653, 656, 56 P. 1082; Ryyne v. Manchester Assurance Co., 14 Okla. 555, 78 P. 558; Brown on Jurisdiction, sec. 10.2 The ... ...
-
Fehr v. Black Petroleum Corp.
...Dermid, 4 Okla. 272, 44 P. 276; Beach v. Beach, 4 Okla. 359, 399, 46 P. 514; Parlin v. Schram, 4 Okla. 651, 46 P. 490; Parker v. Lynch et al., 7 Okla. 650, 59 P. 1082: Rhyne v. Manchester Assurance Co., 14 Okla. 555, 78 P. 558; Brown on Jurisdiction, section 10. The only question presented ......
-
Rust v. Gillespie
...or under the territorial statutes, to try or determine title to real estate. Garrett v. London, 15 Okla. 222, 81 P. 421; Parker v. Lynch, 7 Okla. 631, 56 P. 1082; In re Bolin's Estate, 22 Okla. 851, 98 P. 934; Austin v. Chambers, 33 Okla. 40, 124 P. 310; Crump v. Pitchford, 24 Okla. 808, 10......
-
Pierson v. Loveland
...Haw, 40 Cal. 373; Sacramento Sav. Bank v. Hynes, 50 Cal. 195; Small v. Rakestraw, 28 Mont. 413, 104 Am. St. 691, 72 P. 746; Parker v. Lynch, 7 Okl. 631, 56 P. 1082; Baldwin v. Keith, 13 Okl. 624, 75 P. SULLIVAN, C. J. Stewart and Ailshie, JJ., concur. OPINION SULLIVAN, C. J. This is an acti......