Pyeatt v. Estus
| Decision Date | 06 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 4947. |
| Citation | 179 P. 42,72 Okla. 160,1916 OK 607 |
| Parties | PYEATT et al. v. ESTUS et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
On Rehearing, March 18, 1919.
Syllabus by the Court.
Motion to dismiss this appeal was filed, alleging that subsequent to the rendition of judgment in this case the plaintiffs in error filed suit against a certain surety company as bondsmen of the former guardian, who, it was alleged, had defaulted. Held, that such facts do not show the controversy at issue to be settled nor constitute a bar to the further prosecution of this proceeding.
In a case of equity jurisdiction, this court will examine the whole record, and if it clearly appears that the judgment of the trial court is contrary to the preponderance or weight of the testimony, or a gross injustice committed, will render such decree as should have been entered, or reverse with directions for such decree to be entered in the trial court.
While the petition filed in the county court for the sale of the minors' lands was rather general and in stereotype form yet the same set out sufficient facts to confer jurisdiction upon the court to consider the necessities of the sale and to order said lands sold.
When a court has acquired jurisdiction both of the subject-matter and the parties, yet, if it renders a judgment not authorized by law, such judgment is, as a general rule, void.
After a court has acquired jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties, it should clearly appear that the court exceeded its authority in the particular judgment rendered before such judgment should be held to be void.
It is not clear that the judgment of the county court ordering the sale of the minors' lands was not within the provisions of the statute and warranted by the facts. Hence said judgment is not void for such reason.
The facts show that the lands involved belonging to the minor plaintiffs were ordered sold for cash in hand; that they were purchased at the guardian's sale by M. for himself and associates V. and H. for the sum of $26,000 to be paid cash that before the conveyances were made said purchasers sold said land to the defendant E. for an agreed consideration of $48,620, $15,000 of which amount was to be paid in cash obtained by negotiating a loan on the lands in question, the balance to be paid in Oklahoma City property and second mortgage lien notes; that the $15,000 cash secured on the lands was turned over to Allen Cash, as guardian, and the conveyance was made to Allen Cash individually to certain Oklahoma City property, valued at approximately $28,000. The facts further show that the said purchasers colluded with the guardian for the purpose of securing title to the minors' lands in the manner stated. Held, that such facts rendered the conveyances to said land void.
All of the conveyances involved were executed in the office of the attorney for the defendants Prudential Insurance Company of America and the Deming Investment Company, and that such attorney investigated and passed upon the title to said lands involved, and in making such investigation secured such information as to the fact that the full purchase price of said lands was not paid in cash sufficient, if reasonable diligence had been used, would have obtained knowledge of all facts. Held, that said loan companies were not innocent bona fide incumbrancers without notice.
The defendant E., the purchaser of said lands, intrusted the examination and approving of the title to the attorney for the loan companies, who performed said services without additional charge to her. Held, under the laws, the relation of attorney and client existed between such attorney and purchaser, and such purchaser was bound by such notice and knowledge as was acquired by such attorney in examining and passing on said titles.
Upon an examination of the entire record, it is found that the judgment of the trial court is clearly contrary to the weight of the testimony, and that said judgment should be reversed and the relief prayed for granted, upon the conditions stated in the opinion.
On Rehearing.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Where guardian's sale was ordered to be made for cash, and purchaser before receiving conveyance conveyed to defendant, who possessed facts sufficient to put a prudent person upon inquiry as to collusion, she was not a purchaser without notice.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 5.
Error from District Court, Garvin County; R. McMillan, Judge.
Action by Alvin F. Pyeatt, guardian, and others against Jennie C. Estus and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed, with directions to enter decree for plaintiffs.
C. G. Moore, of Purcell, Albert Rennie, of Pauls Valley, Jno. A McClure, of Sulphur, and Burwell, Crockett & Johnson, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
F. A. Gillette, of El Reno, Wm. H. McNeal, of Oklahoma City, Chas. B. Mitchell, of Miami, Thompson & Patterson, Blanton & Andrews, and Geo. W. Welch, all of Pauls Valley, and J. J. Carney, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.
LINN, C. (Plaintiffs in error will be designated plaintiffs, and defendants in error, defendants.)
The plaintiffs are minor children of A. P. Cash, suing through their legal guardian, A. F. Pyeatt, the purpose of which suit is to have canceled certain conveyances to the lands involved, which comprise the allotments of said minors and their deceased mother. Briefly stated, the grounds of recovery alleged are that the probate proceedings under which said lands were sold and conveyed to the defendants were void, in that the petition failed to allege facts sufficient to give the county court jurisdiction, and, further, that the order of the court authorizing the sale was based upon a ground not alleged in the petition or provided for by law therefore void. It is further alleged that by reason of fraud practiced by the defendants A. L. McDonald, T. H. Vaughan, and Henry Hickman, in collusion with the defendant A. P. Cash, father and legal guardian of the minor plaintiffs, as a result of which fraud the purchase price for which said lands were sold was not paid in cash, but partly in cash and partly in depreciated property situated in Oklahoma City; that such fraud and conduct of said defendants was known to the other defendants, or by the use of ordinary diligence might have been known, and by reason thereof the title to said lands did not vest under and by reason of said conveyances. The defendants A. L. McDonald and T. H. Vaughan filed answers, denying generally and specifically the allegations of the petition and setting up the probate proceedings and the conveyances thereunder. Defendants Prudential Insurance Company of America and the Deming Investment Company denied any knowledge of the fraud, and relied upon said probate proceedings, and claimed to be mortgagees for value without notice or knowledge of any fraud as alleged. The defendant Jennie C. Estus denied generally and specifically the allegations of the petition, and relied on her purchase, and avers she is a bona fide purchaser in good faith and without notice of any fraud, as alleged. Said proceedings came on for trial to the court without the intervention of a jury, and upon the conclusion of the testimony the court found generally in favor of the defendants, holding that said probate proceedings were regular and in accordance with the law, and that none of said defendants were guilty of any fraud affecting the title to any of said land. The court also found that the full agreed price of said land had been paid in cash. From this judgment the plaintiffs have prosecuted their appeal by filing their petition in error, with original case-made attached. There seems to be but little dispute in the testimony, but the controversy mainly arises over the question as to what conclusion the facts show. Briefly stated, the undisputed evidence shows that the defendants A. L. McDonald, T. H. Vaughan, and one Henry Hickman conceived the idea that it would be to the interest of these minors that their allotments, aggregating about 750 acres of Washita Valley lands, were insufficient to maintain and educate said minors, and that the climatic condition was not conducive to their continued good health; hence that it would be greatly to the interest of said minors that their father and legal guardian should cause said lands to be sold to these parties and the proceeds thereof invested in other property or held by the guardian to be paid out for maintenance, etc. Feeling thus concerned about the plaintiffs' welfare, they induced the guardian to file a petition for the purpose of causing said lands to be sold, and agreed with him in advance that they would guarantee to bid upon said land the sum of $26,000, and each of the three gentlemen, as the testimony shows, deposited $250 in a bank at Maysville, guaranteeing their good faith, and that they would bid the stipulated amount at the sale. The petition was filed, and in due time the court made an order directing the guardian to proceed to sell said lands at public sale for cash in hand. Said sale was made, and the defendant A. L. McDonald, for himself and associates, purchased the land, agreeing to pay therefor the sum of $26,000. This sale was made on March 26, 1910. About the time or soon after the lands had been bid in by the defendant A. L. McDonald he found a purchaser for the same in the personage of Mrs. Jennie C. Estus, and contracted to convey these lands to her for the consideration of $48,620, $15,000 of which was to be paid in cash, which money was to be secured by the said defendant Jennie C. Estus, negotiating a loan upon the property involved; and the balance to be paid by executing certain notes and mortgages aggregating $5,500...
To continue reading
Request your trial