Sunderland v. Bishop
Decision Date | 17 June 1924 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 13539 |
Parties | SUNDERLAND et al. v. BISHOP. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Injunction--Protection of Possession of Land
Equity will protect the possession of real estate by the granting of a temporary injunction, where the facts show possession in one, and an attempt by the other to forcibly interfere with such possession and commit trespass with damages, without reference to the solvency of the parties, and such possession will be protected until final hearing
2. Same--Right to Relief
In an action to enjoin trespass upon land, proof of prior possession anti the planting of crops by the plaintiff are sufficient to entitle him to relief until the right to possession has been determined.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3.
Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Redmond S. Cole, Judge.
Action by G. W. Bishop against J. W. Sunderland et al. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Thompson & Wilson and Thompson & Springer, for plaintiffs in error
Rogers & Jones, for defendant in error.
¶1 This action was instituted by defendant in error for injunction and to quiet title to lands, claimed by plaintiffs in error, defendants below, under a lease, and for convenience the parties will be designated as they appeared in the lower court.
¶2 Plaintiff's petition alleges one Flossie Baker owned certain lands, and on February 28, 1921, she leased the same to the plaintiff for a period of one year beginning January 1, 1922, and the lease was duly recorded. That during the year 1921, the plaintiff was in quiet and undisputed possession of the premises as a tenant of J. W. Sunderland, the defendant herein. That, relying on his lease with the owner of the premises, he sowed crops on the land; that the defendants claim some interest in the land, the exact nature of which is to the plaintiff unknown; that defendants have taken possession of the land and are interfering with plaintiff in the care of the crops so planted. That plaintiff should cut and harvest his crops before June 1, 1922, but cannot do so because of the interference by the defendants.
¶3 Plaintiff alleges in paragraph six of his petition as follows:
"That this plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; that the defendants and each of them claim by, through, or under the said Flossie Baker, and that by reason of said fact this plaintiff is unable to maintain an action in forcible entry and detainer, and that this plaintiff cannot recover in any action at law in sufficient time to save and protect the said crops and that there is great danger that this plaintiff will be irreparably damaged if the said defendants are permitted to continue to interfere with the occupation of said premises by this plaintiff, that this plaintiff owns and is in quiet possession of neighboring property which cannot be profitably managed without possession of the premises described in said lease."
¶4 Upon this petition plaintiff prays for a temporary injunction, restraining defendants from trespassing on the land or interfering with his possession, and that the leasehold for the year 1922 be declared in the plaintiff.
¶5 The cause came on for hearing May 29, 1922, and upon the application for a temporary injunction, and plaintiff offered the verified petition in evidence and the same was admitted over objection of the defendant and exception noted, and thereupon plaintiff rested his case. The defendant introduced evidence disclosing defendant had been a tenant, and in possession of the land for some years under written lease executed by the owner, Flossie Baker; that he so held the land during 1921; and on January 17, 1921, defendant Sunderland subleased the land of plaintiff; which sublease contained a proviso reciting that if Sunderland obtained the right of possession for the year 1922 the plaintiff had the option of subleasing from Sunderland for the year 1922. It further appears from the evidence that defendant told the plaintiff, he, defendant, had an oral agreement of lease for the year 1922, which was to be reduced to writing, and on February 1st, this oral agreement for possession of the land was reduced to writing and appears in the record as a written lease, duly executed, but never filed for record, and 27 days from the due execution of the lease from the owner to the defendant, or on to wit, February 28, 1921, the plaintiff entered into a written lease with the owner, for possession of the lands for the year 1922, and at the time plaintiff took his lease from the owner, he knew his immediate landlord, Sunderland, defendant herein, had secured a written lease for the year 1922. At the conclusion of the testimony the court granted a temporary injunction. Motion to dissolve the same was filed and overruled and defendant appeals. Defendant presents to this court five specifications of error all of which upon this record may be considered under three propositions:
¶6 In support of these propositions the defendants rely upon the following cases as authorities in the instant case:
¶7 In Crutcher v. Johnstone, 62 Okla. 92, 162 P. 201, this court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Baker v. Lloyd
- Sunderland v. Bishop
-
Jennings v. Elliott
...or waste without reference to the solvency of the parties, and such possession will be protected until final hearing. Sunderland v. Bishop, 100 Okla. 54, 227 P. 398. ¶32 Where an oil and gas lease has terminated either by the expiration of the term or by reason of other provisions therein, ......
- Bradley v. Renfrow