Ross v. Alworth
| Decision Date | 21 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 15109 |
| Citation | 105 Okla. 155,231 P. 885,1924 OK 960 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROSS v. ALWORTH et al. |
¶0 1. Fraud--Impeaching Writing -- Pleading and Proof.
Where fraud is relied upon to impeach the terms of a written instrument, it must be specifically pleaded and clearly proven.
2. Same--Sufficiency of Proof.
The burden is upon the pleader or complainant to prove by legal or competent evidence an allegation of fraud; the proof must show that the statement was made, that the damage complained of was the result of the fraud alleged, that the party making the false representation knew it to be false, that the complainant believed the statement, relied, and acted upon it.
3. Judgment--Presumption of Sufficiency of Evidence.
The general rule of law is that, when a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered a judgment in relation to any subjectmatter within its jurisdiction, the presumption arises that it had before it sufficient evidence to authorize it to award such judgment, and where facts were required to be proved to confer jurisdiction, that such facts were duly proved, although the record is silent upon the matter.
4. Same--Insufficiency of Evidence--Fraud--Probate Proeeedings.
The evidence, as disclosed by the record in this case, examined, and held to be wholly insufficient to establish the allegation of fraud, or the invalidity of the probate proceedings attacked.
Norman Barker and Humphrey & Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
H. H. Montgomery, S. J. Montgomery, and Bell & Fellows, for defendants in error.
¶1 This suit was instituted in the district court of Washington county, Okla., by Gunter Ross, appellant, against G. C. Alworth et al., appellees herein, on April 22, 1922. This suit seems to have been instituted originally in the name of Maud W. Ross, as guardian of Gunter Ross, the said Gunter Ross having reached his majority subsequent to the institution of the same, for the cancellation of a certain oil and gas lease, and for damages. The record discloses that ih 1906 William T. Ross, guardian of the appellant at that time, executed an oil and gas mining lease to the Kansas & Texas Oil and Gas Company, said lease to run for 15 years from date of execution, and for a consideration of 10 per cent. of the oil and gas produced. This lease was assigned to various parties, who are named as defendants in the plaintiff's petition. In 1916 G. C. Alworth, one of the appellees, entered into negotiation with Maud W. Ross, who was then the guardian of the appellant, Gunter Ross, for a renewal or an extension of the original lease, which negotiation resulted in the execution of a new oil and gas lease, which carried with it an additional consideration in that it provided for a 1/8 royalty, 12 1/2 per cent. of the oil and gas produced, rather than 10 per cent., as provided for in the original lease. This second lease was approved by the county court of Coal county, Okla., and this action is to cancel and set aside said lease upon the ground that it was obtained by fraud, and that it was never legally approved.
¶2 The allegations of plaintiff's petition are that the appellee Alworth, at the time he induced Maud W. Ross, guardian of the appellant, to execute the lease now in controversy, stated to the said Maud W. Ross:
"That there were six oil and gas wells thereon (referring to the lease) which were producing oil and gas in paying quantities, and that he would and could under the terms of said lease lawfully pull the casing therefrom and remove all the property. casing, and other effects and things of every description placed thereon by the said Kansas & Texas Oil and Gas Company. or any of its successors or assigns; and this plaintiff's guardian, Maud W. Ross, not being learned in the law, and not knowing the terms of said lease; entered into a certain void stipulation, etc. * * *"
¶3 Plaintiff further alleges:
"That said stipulation was in violation of law and the court was without jurisdiction to confirm or ratify the same and was in violation of rule 9 of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma as promulgated by said court and became effective on July 15, 1914, prescribing procedure in probate matters and because no public sale of said lease was made and the said plaintiff's guardian in said proceeding was permitted to sell to only one person and that person was the said defendant, G. C. Alworth. he did not bid for the same in open court and did not pay anything for the same, etc. * * * "
¶4 The above constitutes the material allegations of the petition. The defendant Alworth filed his answer to plaintiff's petition, and generally denied all of the matters set up in same, except such as are admitted, and specifically denied that any fraud was practiced, and avers, a valuable consideration was paid by reason of the increased royalty provided for in the second lease, and sets forth the lease in full, and the order of the county court of Coal county approving same, which shows to be formal and regular on its face. The other defendants named likewise filed their answers in the nature of general denials. The pleadings in this case are rather voluminous, but we think the statement above made is sufficient for the purpose of this opinion. The case was thereafter submitted to the court, and the plaintiff called Mrs. Maud W. Ross and Gunter Ross as witnesses, who were examined by counsel for plaintiff, and excused without crossexamination on the part of counsel for defendants. Plaintiff rested his case, and defendant interposed a demurrer to the evidence for the reason that same is not sufficient to establish the cause of action attempted to be set up in the petition as against this defendant, or any cause of action, and not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought against this defendant, or any other relief. The other defendants likewise interposed demurrers at which time counsel for plaintiff asked leave to introduce the petition and all of the exhibits in evidence, which leave was granted by the court and the same offered in evidence. The court sustained the demurrers interposed, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, from which order and judgment the plaintiff appeals to this court, and sets forth numerous assignments of error, but the question presented in the brief resolved itself simply to onei of whether or not the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence offered by plaintiff upon the ground that it was insufficient to establish the allegation of plaintiff's petition. The evidence, to which our attention is called in brief of appellant in no wise establishes the allegation of fraud. The only piece of testimony we find concerning this issue was in response to questions asked the witness Maud W. Ross. wherein she was asked to relate the conversation had between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manuel v. Kidd
...91 Okla. 176, 217 P. 404; Johnson v. Furchtbar, 96 Okla. 114, 220 P. 612; Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okla. 277, 190 P. 681; Ross v. Alworth, 105 Okla. 155, 231 P. 885. ¶8 This court, in McIntosh v. Holtgrave, 79 Okla. 63, 191 P. 739, said:"A domestic judgment may be attacked in three ways:"(a) ......
-
Kehlier v. Smith
...the jurisdiction of the court, and not whether the jurisdiction was properly exercised." ¶18 And in a more recent case of Ross v. Alworth, 105 Okla. 155, 231 P. 885, the rule is announced as follows: "The general rule of law is that, when a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered a jud......
-
Citizens State Bank of Vici v. Boggess
...jurisdiction, that such facts were duly proved although the record is silent on the matter. 15 R. C. L. p. 878, sec. 356; Ross v. Alworth, 105 Okla. 155, 231 P. 885. ¶10 The plaintiff brought its appeal to this court by transcript and bill of exceptions. The action of the court upon the dif......
- Ross v. Alworth