Washington v. Morton
| Decision Date | 12 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 11065 |
| Citation | 1923 OK 380,216 P. 457,90 Okla. 142 |
| Parties | WASHINGTON et al. v. MORTON. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Review of Equity Case--Sufficiency of Evidence.
In equity cases the court will review all the evidence and, unless it clearly preponderates against the judgment of the trial court, the same will be affirmed.
2. Deeds--Fraud--Presumptions and Proof.
In cases where fraud is alleged in the procuring of the execution of written instruments or deeds, the proof must sustain the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence so great as to overcome all opposing evidence and repel to opposing presumptions.
3. Trusts--Interest in Land--Quieting Title --Right of Action in Trustee.
Where A. purchases a tract of land for himself and B., and takes title in B., B. holds the title in trust for A. to the extent of his interest, and may prosecute an action to quiet title to the land in his own name.
4. Deeds--Cancellation for Fraud--Laches.
Actions for fraud to set aside conveyances must be promptly brought upon discovery of the fraud, unless the parties are laboring under some legal disability which would prevent the bringing of the action.
5. Same--Fraud -- Fiduciary Relations--Pleading.
In actions for fraud growing out of fiduciary relations, the existence of the fiduciary relations must be alleged.
6. Deeds--Cancellation--Inadequacy of Consideration -- Nonpayment of Purchase Price.
Inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient to justify a court of equity in setting aside a deed regularly executed, much less a failure to pay the purchase price. In the former case, the vendor must bear the loss, as the court cannot contract for the parties; while in the latter case, he may sue and recover it.
7. Quieting Title--Judgment--Evidence.
Record examined, and held, that the weight of the evidence fairly preponderates in favor of the judgment of the trial court.
Error from District Court, Okmulgee County; Mark L. Bozarth, Judge.
Action by Walter W. Morton against Aggie Washington, Charles Johnson, and John D. Wakeley to quiet title. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Caruthers & Irwin, for plaintiffs in error.
W. W. Wood, for defendant in error.
¶1 This action was brought by defendant in error, plaintiff below, on the 15th day of May, 1917, in the district court of Okmulgee county, against plaintiffs in error, defendants below, to quiet title to the following described tracts of land:
"The west half (W 1/2) of the northwest quarter (N.W. 1/4) of section twenty-one (21), and east half (E. 1/2) of northeast quarter (N.E. 1/4) of section twenty (20), all in township fourteen (14) north, range twelve (12) east; and the northwest quarter (N.W. 1/4) of the northeast quarter (N.E. 1/4) and the northeast quarter (N.E. 1/4) of the northwest quarter (N.W. 1/4) of section thirty (30), township fourteen (14) north, range eleven (11) east, in Okmulgee county, state of Oklahoma."
¶2 Defendant in error alleges, in substance, in his petition that he is the owner of the land, is in possession of the same; that he purchased it from W. A. Jolly, and that W. A. Jolly purchased it from Dixon Washington and Aggie Washington, husband and wife, who inherited it in equal parts from their two deceased minor children, and that plaintiffs in error are asserting claim to the land which is a cloud upon his title, and praying that title be quieted in him as against these claims.
¶3 Plaintiff in error Aggie Washington filed a separate answer and cross-petition, denying knowingly having executed the deed to Jolly or a petition to the county court of Okmulgee county for approval of deed from Dixon Washington, her husband, to Jolly, or that she was ever paid anything for her interest in the property. She avers that the only transaction she ever had with reference to the land was under the following circumstances: That in October, 1910, her husband, Dixon Washington, was in jail in the town of Okmulgee, charged with forgery; that plaintiff sent for her to come to Okmulgee, and that when she came she was asked by plaintiff and his agents to sign an instrument to indemnify Jolly against loss by reason of his becoming bondsman for her husband. She further avers that she was so mentally and physically infirm at the time by reason of pregnancy that she was incapable of understanding the nature of the transaction, and that she had no conception or understanding of the papers she signed, but was told by plaintiff and his agents that it was for the purpose of enabling her husband to mortgage his interest in the land to indemnify his bondsmen, and that the deed was a mortgage of her husband's interest for this purpose, and for the purpose of procuring money with which to pay his attorney's fee, and that she received nothing for her interest in the land at any time or in any way.
¶4 She further avers that she knew nothing of plaintiff's claim to the title and possession of the land until within the last twelve months, and was preparing to bring suit when this action was brought; that she relied on what her husband, plaintiff, and his agents told her--that the instrument was only to enable her husband to make bond; that this was false and, without reading or knowing the contents of the paper, she signed it, and that the land is of the value of $ 8,000.
¶5 The other plaintiffs in error claim under subsequent conveyance from Aggie Washington, and it will not be necessary to consider them further, as they must stand or fall by the strength of her title.
¶6 The evidence is conflicting and irreconcilable, and, unless it clearly preponderates against the judgment of the trial court, the same must be affirmed, the action having been treated by all parties as an action of equitable cognizance.
¶7 Dixon Waghington and Aggie Washington are citizens of the Creek Nation and are enrolled as members of that tribe of Indians. They were husband and wife, Dixon being a full-blood, and Aggie of three-eighths, and, in the year of 1907, under the Arkansas statute of descent and distribution, which was in force at that time, they inherited the land in question, jointly, in equal interests from their two deceased minor children.
¶8 On the 21st day of October, 1910, they conveyed the land by warranty deed to W. A. Jolly in consideration of the sum of $ 2,000, and on the 5th day of July, 1911. W. A. Jolly, by quitclaim deed, conveyed it to defendant in error. At the time this action was brought, Dixon Washington was dead, he having died in January, 1917, and as to his one-half interest in the land there is no controversy.
¶9 The gravamen of the defense of Aggie Washington, and of the affirmative relief sought in her cross-petition, is the fraudulent character of the transaction and her want of understanding of the nature and character of the instrument she executed, it being represented to her by defendant in error's agents that its purpose was to secure bondsmen and attorney's fee for her husband, Dixon Washington, who had been informed against for forgery, and was only as to his interest in the land, when, in fact, it was a deed conveying her interest as well as that of her husband's.
¶10 Her testimony, briefly, is that her husband was in jail, and that Joe Grayson came for her and brought her from her home in Beggs, Okla., to Mr. Holbrook's office in Okmulgee, who was attorney for her husband on the criminal charge, and who told her that Dixon had been in jail quite a while, and said he (deceased) had some land to put up for bond if she would sign so he could get out and look around for money for his lawyer's fee; that she was sick at the time of pregnancy; that a child was born to her about a week later; that she did not read the instrument and had no knowledge that she was signing a deed to her interest in the land, and received no part of the consideration; that she never was in Holbrooks' office but the one time, and did not come back to Okmulgee for about seven years; that no one was present when she signed the deed but Joe Grayson and C. W. Holbrook, and that she did not sign a petition to the county court for an approval of the deed of her husband. No witness corroborates her testimony, but, on the other hand, she is strongly contradicted as to every material fact.
¶11 The opposing testimony is to the effect that Joe Grayson brought Aggie Washington to the office of C. W. Holbrook on October 15, 1910; that Dixon Washington was released from Jail on that day and was not in jail again; that, on the same day, in Holbrook's office, Aggie and Dixon talked over with Holbrook the matter of his fee for defending Dixon, and the matter of bond and said that they would sell the land if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickel v. Janda
...and unnecessary delay in availing himself of his remedy, a court of equity will deny him relief." ¶13 See, also, Washington v. Morton, 90 Okla. 142, 216 P. 457; Horrigan v. Gibson, 87 Okla. 1, 206 P. 219. ¶14 The remaining proposition presented as error goes to the introduction of evidence ......
-
Littlefield v. Aiken
...26 Okla. 48, 108 P. 392; Owen v. U.S. Surety Co., 38 Okla. 123, 131 P. 1091; Rogers v. Harris, 76 Okla. 215, 184 P. 459; Washington v. Morton, 90 Okla. 142, 216 P. 457; Brown v. Harmon, 115 Okla. 277, 242 P. 1047. ¶13 With due consideration of the evidence, we say the same is not convincing......
-
Kelly v. Scott
...v. Penix, 61 Okla. 4, 159 P. 1141; McAlester v. Eli, 98 Okla. 223, 225 P. 146 Derdyn v. Low, 94 Okla. 41, 220 P. 945; Washington et al. v. Morton, 90 Okla. 142, 216 P. 457; Freeman v. Sullivan, 96 Okla. 220, 221 P. 460; Kemper, Hundley, McDonald D. G. Co. v. Fischel, 4 Okla. 250, 44 P. 205;......
-
Troup v. Hine
...by a preponderance of the evidence so great as to overcome all opposing evidence and repel all opposing presumptions. Washington et al. v. Morton, 90 Okla. 142, 216 P. 457. ¶15 We cannot say, under the state of the evidence as disclosed by the record, that the fraud relied on by the defenda......