Sabin v. HOME OWNERS'LOAN CORPORATION
| Decision Date | 28 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 3158.,3158. |
| Citation | 151 F.2d 541 |
| Parties | SABIN et al. v. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
A. L. Harbison, of Tulsa, Okl. (Herbert K. Hyde and Lee Williams, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.
Eben L. Taylor, of Tulsa, Okl. (A. M. Frazier, of Albuquerque, N. M., and Saul A. Yager, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
The appellants instituted an action to quiet title and to recover possession of a house and lot lost through foreclosure proceedings begun in 1937 by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation. The trial court sustained a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and plaintiffs have appealed. This litigation has been long drawn out in both the state courts of Oklahoma and in the federal courts. See Sabin v. Home Owners' Loan Corporation, 187 Okl. 504, 105 P.2d 245, and Sabin v. Home Owners' Loan Corporation, 10 Cir., 147 F.2d 653. The facts out of which this litigation arose are narrated in detail in both the decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and in our former decision, and in the interest of economy of space, reference will be made to the facts as narrated in those decisions and they will not be detailed again herein.
Four assignments of error are presented in the appeal. They are: (1) The foreclosure sale was premature. (2) The deed was issued at a time when further execution had been stayed. (3) The purported judgment of foreclosure had not yet become final. (4) The judgment of foreclosure was void because of disqualification of the state trial judge, and because of fraud and over-reaching.
The first three assignments were considered and passed upon by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in its decision, and were specifically considered and adjudicated by our court in its former decision. As to them, summary judgment was properly entered. While the question of the disqualification of the state trial judge has never been presented to an appellate court, it was tendered in the state district court where the judgment was entered by the appellants' motion to vacate the judgment because of the trial judge's alleged disqualification. He overruled the motion and refused to vacate the judgment. No appeal was taken from that ruling and it has long since become final, and the appellants may not litigate it a second time.
But even aside from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AGB Oil Co. v. CRYSTAL EXPLORATION, ETC.
...res judicata. See, e.g., American Surety Company v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 53 S.Ct. 98, 77 L.Ed. 231 (1932); Sabin v. Home Owners' Loan Corporation, 151 F.2d 541 (10th Cir.1945), cert. denied, 328 U.S. 840, 66 S.Ct. 1011, 90 L.Ed. 1615 (1946); Kithcart v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 11......
-
Sterling v. Local 438, Liberty Ass'n of Steam and Power Pipe Fitters and Helpers' Ass'n
...Advisory Committee, 8 Cir., 135 F.2d 108; Eller v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 403, 149 A.L.R. 1191; Sabin v. Home Owners' Loan Corp., 10 Cir., 151 F.2d 541. In the case before us, there is really no dispute of fact. The parties differ in the significance and legal consequen......
-
Washington County Farm Bureau Co-op. Ass'n v. B. & O. R. R. Corp.
...depositions, or admissions on file that there are, as a matter of fact no genuine issues for trial. See, also, Sabin v. Home Owners' Loan Corp. (C.C.A.10), 151 F.2d 541; Brooks v. Utah Power & Light Co, (C.C.A.10), 151 F.2d 514. But, it is not the purpose of the rule to deprive litigants of......
-
Zampos v. United States Smelting Refining and Min. Co.
...well founded in fact are insufficient to state a justiciable controversy requiring the submission thereof for trial. Sabin v. Home Owners' Loan Corp., 10 Cir., 151 F.2d 541, certiorari denied, 328 U.S. 840, 66 S.Ct. 1011, 90 L.Ed. On a motion for summary judgment, the burden rests upon the ......