Rorex v. Karcher

• Decision Date: 18 December 1923
• Docket Number: Case Number: 12111
• Citation: 224 P. 696,101 Okla. 195,1923 OK 1167
• Parties: ROREX v. KARCHER et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1923 OK 1167

224 P. 696

101 Okla. 195

ROREX v. KARCHER et al.

Case Number: 12111

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: December 18, 1923

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Notice of Appeal--Sufficiency -- Record.

Section 782, Comp. Stat. 1921, requiring notice of appeal, is sufficiently complied with where notice of appeal is given in open court and the journal entry of the proceedings contains a recitation that such notice was given in open court, although the clerk's minutes failed to show that notice of appeal was given.

2. Oil and Gas--Priority of Leases--Validity of Overlapping Lease.

A landowner executed an oil and gas lease to defendants on November 1, 1913. On December 11, 1917, and while defendants' lease was still in force, the landowner executed a lease to plaintiff for a period of one and a half years. Defendants' lease would have expired on November 1, 1918, but on September 26, 1918, the defendants procured an extension of the lease for a period of one year. Held, the lease executed by the owner of the fee to the plaintiff was a valid lease, although executed while there was a valid lease on the property, and the defendants' rights under the extension agreement were subject to the superior rights of the plaintiff under his lease.

I. H. Cox, for plaintiff in error.

D. P. Farrell, for defendant in error.

COCHRAN, J.

¶1 The defendants in error have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that notice of appeal was not given as provided by law. The motion for a new trial was overruled on September 11, 1920, and the following entry made in the clerk's minutes:

"This cause comes on for hearing upon the motion of the plaintiff for new trial. Motion is overruled, to which plaintiff excepts, and exceptions allowed."

¶2 On November 4, 1920, a journal entry was filed, reciting that on the 11th day of September, 1920, the motion for a new trial was overruled and notice of appeal was given in open court. The defendants in error contend that the recitations contained in the journal entry, which was filed on November 4th, should not be considered as a statement of the order made on September 11th; that it is an attempt to make an order on the 4th of November as of the 11th of September without notice and without a hearing. With this contention we cannot agree. In Reynolds v. Reynolds, 94 Okla. 114, 221 P. 109, this court held that where a judgment was rendered in a case and thereafter a journal entry of judgment was entered and filed in the case, the judgment was of the date the same was rendered by the court, and not of the date the journal entry of judgment was in fact filed. So, in the instant case, we must accept the journal entry which was filed on November 4th, but purports to recite the order entered on September 11, 1920, as a correct recitation of the order made by the court on September 11th. The journal entry which was entered in this case evidences the fact that notice was given in open court, and where such notice was given and journal entry of the proceedings recites that it was done, the requirements of the statutes have been met. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the motion to dismiss the appeal should be denied. This suit was brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error to establish the validity of an oil and gas lease executed to him by Clinton Jackson and his wife, on December 11, 1917, covering 40 acres of land in Okmulgee county. This lease was to run for a period of...