Standifer v. Morris

• Decision Date: 08 March 1910
• Docket Number: Case Number: 416
• Citation: 1910 OK 94,25 Okla. 802,108 P. 413
• Parties: STANDIFER v. MORRIS et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1910 OK 94

108 P. 413

25 Okla. 802

STANDIFER v. MORRIS et al.

Case Number: 416

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 8, 1910

Syllabus

¶0 1. IMPROVEMENTS--Occupying Claimant's' Act. M., after the execution to him of a void tax deed, in good faith went into possession of the lots conveyed and erected thereon improvements of the value of about a thousand dollars. After taking possession of the lots, he borrowed money from S. upon his promissory note secured by mortgage on said premises, which money he expanded in placing said improvements on said lots. Afterward, and after the execution and recordation of said mortgage, M. removed from said premises and leased the same to H., who went into possession as the tenant of M. Afterward M. executed a warranty deed to said lots to H., who was and is still in possession. Held that, upon a suit to foreclose said mortgage, S., upon equitable grounds, was entitled to the benefit of the occupying claimant's act.

2. LANDLORD AND TENANT--Estoppel to Deny Landlord's Title. The general doctrine of estoppel precludes a tenant during the continuance of his possession under a lease from buying in and setting up an adverse title to defeat a lien on the improvements on the leased premises acquired by a mortgagee in good faith from the landlord of the lessee prior to the execution of the lease. This rule does not, however, prohibit the tenant during the tenancy from purchasing any outstanding title and from asserting the same against the landlord after the expiration of the tenancy and yielding up of possession.

Error from District Court, Cleveland County; C. F. Irwin. Judge.

Action by Thomas Standifer against John W. Morris sad others. Judgment for defendants and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

John H. Mozier and J. B. Dudley, for plaintiff in error.--Citing: Smith v. Smith, 15 Kan. 290; Stebbins v. Guthrie, 4 Kan. 354; Uhl v. Grissom, 12 Okla. 322; 16 A. & E. Enc. L. (2d Ed.) pp. 93, 100, and cases cited; Mercer v. Justice (Kan.) 65 P. 219; Cleveland v. Clark (Mich.) 81 A. S. R. 161; Parsons v. Moses, 16 Iowa 440; Houghton v. Allen (Cal.) 14 P. 641; Laughlin v. Braley, 25 Kan. 102; Fletcher v. Brown (Neb.) 53 N.W. 577; Mills v. Greer, 111 Ga. 275; Dean v. Feely, 67 Ga. 804; 20 A. &. E. Enc. L. (2d Ed.) pp. 915-918, and cases cited; Story, Eq. Juris. 779; Pomeroy, Eq. Juris. 1241; Jones on Landlord and Tenant, p. 806, sec. 689.

Newell & Jackson, for defendants in error.--Citing: Board of Regents v. Linscott, 30 Kan. 240; Coonradt v. Myers, 31 Kan. 30; Uhl v. Grissom, 12 Okla. 322; Lunquest v. Ten Eyck, 40 Iowa 213; Clussen & Kuehl v. Rayburn, 14 Iowa 136; Smith v. Smith, 15 Kan. 290; Stebbins v. Guthrie, 4 Kan. 354.

KANE, J.

¶1 Originally this was a suit commenced by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, against the defendants in error, John W. Morris and Mrs. John W. Morris, his wife, and Chas. J. Howard and Mrs. Chas. J. Howard, his wife, to recover judgment against the defendant in error John W. Morris upon a promissory note, and to foreclose a real estate mortgage given by said Morris to secure the payment of said note, covering lots 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32, in block 31, of the town of Noble, Cleveland county, Okla. Mrs. Morris, Chas. J. Howard, and wife were made defendants for the purpose of foreclosing whatever interest they may have had in the property. Ella A. Foster was made a party upon her petition in intervention, setting up title to lots 27, 28, 29, and 30. Howard and wife filed separate answers, claiming title to lots 31 and 32 by virtue of a deed executed to them by Samuel Lazarus, who deraigned title from the town-site board of the town of Noble, and further alleged that plaintiff's mortgage was based upon a void tax deed, which purported to convey title to Morris. Ella Foster deraigned her title to lots 27, 28, 29, and 30 from the town-site commission, and she also claimed that the tax deed through which Morris claimed title to those lots was void.

¶2 It is conceded by all the parties that Morris claimed title through a tax deed, and that the tax deed was void, but the plaintiff by way of reply alleged, in substance, that on the 5th day of September, 1894, lots 31 and 32 were sold by the treasurer of Cleveland county for taxes to L. F. Weeks, and certificate of tax sale issued therefor, and thereafter a tax deed was also issued to Weeks; that the tax deed was never filed for record; that thereafter Weeks conveyed all her right, title and interest in said certificate of tax sale and deed to F. W. Weeks, who in turn conveyed all his interest therein to R. F. Ellinger; that thereafter said lots were again sold for taxes to plaintiff, and a tax certificate issued to them therefor; that thereafter he sold and transferred his certificate of tax sale to said Ellinger, who in turn sold and conveyed his interest therein to said lots to Morris; that thereafter said Morris went into possession of said premises believing himself to be the owner thereof, and in good faith placed the improvements thereon of the value of $ 800 or $ 1,000; that while in the possession of said premises, and believing himself to be the owner thereof, he executed the mortgage in controversy to plaintiff; that the money borrowed from the mortgagee and secured by said mortgage was expended in placing said improvements on said lots; that, even if the tax deed is void, the plaintiff as the mortgagee and assignee of Morris, the mortgagor, is entitled to a lien on the improvements thereon under and by virtue of the occupying claimant's act. The defendants Morris and wife were duly served with summons, and made default, and judgment was rendered against them for the amount due upon the note, and a decree entered foreclosing the mortgage of plaintiff on said lots as against the Mortises. Thereafter the cause as to the other parties was tried to the court, without a jury, and a final judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, in favor of the defendants Howard and wife, canceling the mortgage so far as it affected lots 31 and 32, and quieting the title of the defendants Howard and wife, and a decree of like effect in favor of Ella Foster in relation to the balance of the lots. To reverse these judgments and decrees this proceeding in error was commenced.

¶3 Counsel for plaintiff in error state the questions presented to this court as follows: (1) Is Morris entitled to the improvements that he placed upon lots 31 and 32, as against Howard and wife, who are grantees of Lazarus, the original owner of said lots, under the occupying claimant...