Pyeatt v. Prudential Ins. Co., Case Number: 2590

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtTURNER, J.
Citation38 Okla. 15,131 P. 914,1913 OK 250
Decision Date15 April 1913
Docket NumberCase Number: 2590

1913 OK 250
131 P. 914
38 Okla. 15

CO. et al.

Case Number: 2590

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: April 15, 1913


¶0 1. RECEIVERS--Appointment--Jurisdiction. Under Comp. Laws 1909, sec. 5772 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 4979), the district judge at chambers is vested with jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in a cause pending in another county within his district.

2. SAME--Notice--Necessity. Where the petition for the appointment of a receiver fails to state facts sufficient to show that the delay which would result in giving notice of the application to the adverse party would defeat petitioner's rights or result in injury to him, it is error for the court to appoint a receiver without notice.

Rennie, Hocker & Moore, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. H. McNeal and C. M. Oakes, for defendants in error.


¶1 On February 13, 1911, Alvin F. Pyeatt, as guardian of five certain minor children named Cash, plaintiff in error, sued Jennie C. Estus, A. L. McDonald, the Prudential Life Insurance Company of Newark, N. J., T. H. Vaughn, A. P. Cash, and the Deming Investment Company, in the district court of Garvin county. The petition, after alleging Pyeatt to be their present, and defendant A. P. Cash to be their former guardian, substantially states that on January 20, 1910, said minors were each the owner of an undivided one-fifth interest in certain lands (describing them) inherited from their mother Alice Cash, a duly enrolled citizen of the Choctaw Nation of three-fourths blood; that on said day said Cash as guardian aforesaid petitioned the county court of Garvin county for the sale of all said land for certain reasons therein set forth; that on February 18, 1910, the court entered a decree as prayed, pursuant to which said Cash undertook to sell said land to defendant A. L. McDonald for $ 28,000 cash, and reported said sale to said court, where the same was later confirmed; that thereafter said Cash, pursuant thereto, executed to said McDonald deeds of conveyance thereto purporting to convey him all the right, title, and interest of said minors therein; that on the same day said McDonald executed to the defendant Jennie C. Estus warranty deeds purporting to convey to her in fee simple all of his title to said land, which said deeds were placed in escrow pending the payment to said Cash, as guardian, said sum of $ 28,000; that long prior to the execution of said deeds from Cash to McDonald and from McDonald to Estus she executed a mortgage thereon to the defendant Prudential Life Insurance Company for $ 15,000, and, at the same time, another for $ 1,500 to the Deming Investment Company, all of which were thereafter duly recorded; that said court was without jurisdiction to order a sale of said land for certain reasons therein set forth; that the same were fraudulent and void for certain other reasons stated, and prayed that the same be canceled, together with certain other mortgages executed and delivered by the said Estus to the Deming Investment Company and defendant Vaughn as commission on the deal. After service of summons, in chambers at Norman in Cleveland county, on March 18, 1911, came said Prudential Insurance Company and presented its petition in said cause to R. McMillan, a judge of said court, and thus made known to the court in substance that theretofore, on August 25, 1910, for the valuable consideration of $ 15,000 paid by it to said Estus, she and her husband made, executed, and delivered to this defendant their promissory note payable in five years thereafter to this defendant and secured the same by a mortgage on said lands; that the same was duly filed for record and thereby became a first lien on said land and an equity therein to the extent of said sum; that thereafter plaintiff's petition was filed alleging said mortgage to be illegal and void and its lien of no force and effect and praying that the same be canceled; that after receiving said $ 15,000 said Jennie C. Estus passed the same to the defendant A. L. McDonald, who deposited the same in the First National Bank of Maysville to the credit of defendant A. P. Cash, who was then guardian of the minor plaintiffs; that petitioner made said payment in good faith and claims to be an innocent purchaser for value to the extent of the interest conveyed by said mortgage; that about January 1st said Cash, then guardian, purchased from the defendant T. H. Vaughn out of the proceeds of said $ 15,000 two certain promissory notes for $ 1,919, each of which are now under his control in his personal capacity; that about that time said Cash was discharged as guardian aforesaid and the plaintiff Pyeatt appointed his successor, whereupon said Cash paid over to him about $ 8,000, a part of said $ 15,000, as belonging to said minors, leaving in said bank the sum of $ 150 only, and charges that the difference has been expended between them and no part of said $ 15,000 has been tendered back to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Truett v. Freedom Leaf, LLC, Case No. 118,928
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 19 Abril 2021
    ...ex parte , giving notice prior to the appointment of a receiver is "settled practice in chancery," Pyeatt v. Prudential Insurance Co. , 1913 OK 250, ¶ 4, 38 Okla. 15, 131 P. 914, 916, "and a departure from this [settled practice] requires a state of facts showing the greatest emergency," id......
  • Cameron v. White, Case Number: 18038
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 20 Septiembre 1927
    ...the necessity of notice and conditions warranting appointment of a receiver without notice in such proceedings, see: Pyeatt v. Ins. Co., 38 Okla. 15, 131 P. 914, reported in 37 Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 897, and cases cited. ¶26 Herein the lower court found that the plaintiff White owned a 1/10th i......
  • Pyeatt v. Prudential Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 15 Abril 1913
    ...914 38 Okla. 15, 1913 OK 250 PYEATT v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. Supreme Court of OklahomaApril 15, Syllabus by the Court. Under Comp. Laws 1909, § 5772, the district judge at chambers is vested with jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in a cause pending in another county within his district. Wher......
  • Shaffer v. Tyrrell, Case Number: 7509
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 6 Junio 1916 the record, although the fact that such motion was filed does not appear in the reported case. Also, in Pyeatt v. Prudential Ins. Co., 38 Okla. 15, 131 P. 914, Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 894, the appeal was from an order refusing to vacate the appointment of a receiver. ¶4 The question involved h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT