Rives v. Cheshewalla

• Decision Date: 14 November 1950
• Docket Number: No. 34279,34279
• Citation: 203 Okla. 555,224 P.2d 264
• Parties: RIVES v. CHESHEWALLA.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 264

224 P.2d 264

203 Okla. 555

RIVES v. CHESHEWALLA.

No. 34279.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 14, 1950.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where it is not otherwise provided by law, the time of attainment of majority by a female minor Osage Indian is governed by Title 15 O.S.A. § 13; and, under this statute, a female arrives at her majority on her eighteenth birthday.

Chas. B. Wilson, Oklahoma City, J. C. Cornett, and Pawhuska, for plaintiff in error.

Chas. R. Gray, W. N. Palmer, Pawhuska, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from the action of the District Court of Osage County, Oklahoma, of August 1, 1949, by which the court vacated a previous order of March 16, 1931, in cause No. D-4016, Bernice Cheshewalla, plaintiff, v. Herbert Cheshewalla, defendant, which directed the defendant to pay to the Clerk of the District Court of Osage County, Oklahoma, $20.00 per month for the support of his minor child, Florence Joyce Cheshewalla; the payments to begin on the first day of April, 1931, and payable each month thereafter until the child reached the age of 21 years.

The undisputed facts are that the child is a female of one-fourth (1/4) degree Osage Indian blood, born on January 1, 1931, and was eighteen years of age on January 1, 1949. Her father, Herbert Cheshewalla, the defendant, is a half-blood Osage Indian, allottee No. 578.

The plaintiff in error's brief appropriately states the crux of this appeal, and we quote:

'The controlling question in the case is: Did Florence Joyce arrive at the age of majority on January 1, 1949, or will she continue to be a 'minor' until January 1, 1952?

'It is the contention of movant that she arrived at the age of majority on January 1, 1949, and that part of the Court's order which is complained of which requires support money to be paid for three years beyond that date is void.

'It is the contention of appellant that, because Florence Joyce is an unallotted Osage Indian, she will not arrive at her majority until she arrives at the age of twenty-one years.'

We are of the opinion that the contention of the defendant in error (movant) must be answered in the affirmative, and that of plaintiff in error (appellant) in the negative.

Title 15 O.S.A. § 13 defines minors, except as otherwise provided by law to be: 'First. * * * Second. Females under eighteen years of age.' Under Title 15 O.S.A. § 14, all other persons are adults. And Title 12 O.S.A. § 1277 provides that when a divorce is granted, the court shall make provision for custody, support and education of the minor children of the marriage, and may modify or change any such order when circumstances render such change proper either before or after final judgment in the action. Obviously, these statutory provisions sustain the judgment of the trial court and support the contention of defendant in error. So far as we have been able to ascertain, the only exception to the provisions of Sec. 13, supra, relating to minority is found in Title 10 O.S.A. § 91, et seq., providing for emancipation of minors by decree of the...