Sockey v. Winstock, Case Number: 6184
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | RIDDLE, J. |
| Citation | 144 P. 372,43 Okla. 758,1914 OK 566 |
| Parties | SOCKEY et al. v. WINSTOCK et al. |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 6184 |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1914 |
1914 OK 566
144 P. 372
43 Okla. 758
SOCKEY et al.
v.
WINSTOCK et al.
Case Number: 6184
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: November 17, 1914
¶0 1. GUARDIAN AND WARD--Petition to Sell Realty--Requisites. Under section 6557, Rev. Laws 1910, the petition of a guardian to sell the real estate belonging to his ward must state the condition of the estate, and facts tending to show the expediency or necessity of such sale, in order to give the court jurisdiction to order the sale.
2. SAME--Judgment--Collateral Attack--Petition to Sell Realty--Jurisdiction--Validity of Sale. When the petition filed with the county court contains facts substantially in accordance with the provisions of the statute, the court acquires jurisdiction; and, notwithstanding the proceedings may be irregular and erroneous, the judgment rendered will not be void and subject to collateral attack.
3. JUDGMENT--"Collateral Attack." A "collateral attack" on a judicial proceeding is an attempt to avoid, defeat, or evade, or deny its force and effect in some incidental proceedings not provided by law for the express purpose of attacking it.
4. GUARDIAN AND WARD--Petition to Sell Realty--Sufficiency. The petition filed by the guardian with the county court for the sale of his ward's land substantially complied with the statute, and was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court.
J. A. Bass, for plaintiffs in error.
Sigler & Howard, for defendants in error.
RIDDLE, J.
¶1 Plaintiffs in error, Maggie Sockey, Rafe Sockey, and Ned Sockey, through their guardian, Chas. H. Victor, brought this action in the court below against defendants in error to have declared void and of no effect a conveyance of certain lands belonging to said plaintiffs, which conveyance was made by their former guardian, J. Mat Moore, to defendant I. H. Winstock. Plaintiffs allege in their petition that said sale was void, and conveyed no title to I. H. Winstock, defendant, who was the purchaser at said sale, and that R. M. Winstock, who afterwards purchased from I. H. Winstock, took the title to said lands subject to the defects in the original sale by the guardian; that said sale was void, because the petition or application for sale of said land stated no cause or reason why said land should be sold, and stated no facts which would give the court jurisdiction to hear and direct a sale; and that said application stated no facts under the statute authorizing or justifying a sale of said lands. They further allege that said lands were inherited from their father, John Sockey, a Mississippi Choctaw Indian. Defendants filed their answer, denying that the sale was void, and that the court was without jurisdiction to make the order directing the sale of said lands. They attach to their answer the application for an order of sale, and the decree of the county court directing the sale of the lands. Upon a trial of the cause, the court rendered judgment in favor of defendants on the pleadings, from which judgment plaintiffs prosecute this appeal. The only questions presented for our determination are: (1) Was the petition filed in the county court by the guardian sufficient to confer jurisdiction on that court to make the order of sale? (2) Is this a collateral attack upon the proceedings of the county court and the conveyance made in pursuance thereof? The petition for the sale of said land, omitting description of the property, is as follows:
"Petition to sell Real Estate by Guardian. State of Oklahoma, Carter County: In County Court. In the Matter of the Guardianship of Maggie Sockey, Ned Sockey and Rafe Sockey, minors:...
"Comes now J. Mat Moore, as the guardian of Maggie Sockey, Ned Sockey, and Rafe Sockey, minors, and shows to the court the condition of the estate of the above-named wards, to wit: That there is no personal property belonging to any of the above-named minors. That the said wards own the following described real estate, to wit: Maggie Sockey: (Description, 240 acres of land.) Ned Sockey: (Description, 210 acres.) Rafe Sockey: (Description, 210 acres of land.) The annual income therefrom is one
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welch v. Focht, Case Number: 8436
...Gin Co. v. De Bord, 34 Okla. 66, 123 P. 159; Holmes v. Holmes, 27 Okla. 140, 111 P. 220, 30 L.R.A. (N. S.) 920; Sockey v. Winstock, 43 Okla. 758, 144 P. 372; Moffer v. Jones, 67 Okla. 171, 169 P. 652. ¶6 In the last-named case we held that the scope of inquiry in a collateral attack on the ......
-
Allison v. Crummey, Case Number: 7393
...has been followed in Spade v. Morton, 28 Okla. 384, 114 P. 724, De Walt v. Cline et al., 35 Okla. 197, 128 P. 121, and Sockey v. Winstock, 43 Okla. 758, 144 P. 372, all of which involved probate sales of lands of Indian minor allottees. In the decisions cited only one restriction upon the s......
-
Manuel v. Kidd, Case Number: 16264
...for fraud in its procurement is a direct attack over which courts of equity take jurisdiction, and in the case of Sockey v. Winstock, 43 Okla. 758, 144 P. 372, it is held that:"'Where the judgment is void by reason of fraud practiced in obtaining it, and for like reasons a collateral attack......
-
Tiger v. Drumright, Case Number: 11253
...a sale, and contends that a failure to substantially comply with the provisions of this statute renders the sale void. Sockey v. Winstock, 43 Okla. 758, 144 P. 372, and Dosar v. Hummell, 89 Okla. 152, 214 P. 718; and the California decisions referred to in those cases are cited to support t......