Wiggs v. Flatt
Decision Date | 08 December 1931 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 20759 |
Citation | 6 P.2d 690,1931 OK 768,154 Okla. 94 |
Parties | WIGGS et al. v. FLATT et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Taxation--Tax Deed Held Void.
The tax deed relied on by defendants is held void.
2. Champerty and Maintenance -- Deeds Held not Champertous.
The deeds relied on by the plaintiffs are held to be valid, and not affected by the champerty statutes.
3. Judgment not Sustained.
Cause reversed and new trial ordered.
Appeal from District Court, Pontotoc County; Orel Busby, Judge.
Action by H. B. Wiggs et al. against E. C. Flatt et al. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
Scott Ferris and Don Welch, for plaintiffs in error.
Tom D. McKeown, for defendants in error.
J. E. Whitehead and C. P. Green, for defendant and cross-petitioner James E. Whitehead.
¶1 The beginning of the case was March 26, 1928. Its object was to recover possession of 20 acres of land in section 36, township 5 north, range 4 east, in Pontotoc county. Its occasion was an oil apparition. Lucy Ann Wesley, a Choctaw of one-half blood, received the land as part of her allotment, according to the pleadings, but it appears to be admitted that she died before the land was allotted. The patent covering the land in question is dated September 12, 1906, with notation that the certificate was dated December 20, 1904, and it was surplus land. According to the findings of the referee, appointed by the court, the allottee died intestate January 18, 1904, leaving as her heirs a brother, Henry Wesley, 15 years old, Elias Wesley, 28 years old, Millie Wesley, a female, six years old, Jane Wesley, a female, 4 years old, as shown by the roll of September 25, 1902. Their exact ages, however, are not clearly shown by the evidence, but the referee's report finds the ages.
¶2 This was an action in ejectment. Plaintiff did not set out in the first instance the conveyance from the Choctaw Nation and subsequent conveyances relied on. Defendants made an unsuccessful effort to quash summons and service, and made a motion to require petition to be made more certain on June 8, 1928. Permission to file this motion out of time was granted by the court. On July 31, 1929, first amended petition was filed, covering 53 pages of the case-made. The allotment to a member of the tribe was alleged, and her death and the execution by her heirs and their grantees of the deeds relied on and copies were set out. The answer with the sole charging words, "denies each and every allegation there contained," was filed September 4, 1928.
¶3 Our statutory provisions on the subject of actions in ejectment are as follows:
¶4 Our statute on the subject of allegations as to written instruments, is as follows:
¶5 Under these sections numerous decisions, showing the application, are cited by the annotator. Under these conditions, a great many obstacles were thrown in the way of getting plaintiff's evidence of title before the court, resulting finally in a referee being appointed by the court, pursuant to consent of both sides, to "make report on true conditions of title." It was agreed that in "making of his report he may use abstract No. 3201, sheets 1 to 111, inclusive." Cause was continued, pending filing of report by referee. He took oath on October 20, 1928, and reported in writing November 22. 1928. It contained findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the title, as shown by the abstract to be in plaintiffs, setting forth their respective interests, and reported the respective amounts of all the interests in the land subject to taxes from 1908, unless the judgment in the suit of Wesley v. Bd. of Co. Comm'rs, Keltner et al., barred claim. Our statutes on the subject of court trials and referee's findings are as follows:
¶6 No objections were urged by anyone to the conclusion reached by the referee, who found the respective interests of the parties. All the court did to "cut the Gordian knot" was the saying, "I find for the defendants generally."
¶7 The journal entry does not throw much light on the question as to why the court found for defendants "generally." One effect of finding "generally" is to put the parties to more expense to review the findings. A chain of title from the sovereign was established in plaintiffs, though the record shows a good deal of effort was spent in establishing the execution of instruments, that, the statute says, was admitted for the purposes of the trial. Undoubtedly the referee's findings were sustained by the evidence that appears in the record to have been before the court.
¶8 It never occurred to defendants, prior to the closing of the evidence, that they were under obligation to let it be known that they claimed under tax procedure, until th...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parks v. Lyons, Case Number: 27712
...v. McLain Land & Investment Co. (1902) 11 Okla. 433, 68 P. 501; Eager v. Pugh (1926) 123 Okla. 207, 253 P. 41; and Wiggs v. Flatt (1931) 154 Okla. 94, 6 P.2d 690. It was held in Wilson v. Wood, supra, that "a tax certificate, and a valid assignment thereof, where the assignee claims title u......
-
Parks v. Lyons
...Mattocks v. McLain Land & Investment Co., 1902, 11 Okl. 433, 68 P. 501; Eager v. Pugh, 1926, 123 Okl. 207, 253 P. 41, and Wiggs v. Flatt, 1931, 154 Okl. 94, 6 P.2d 690. It was held in Wilson v. Wood, supra, that "a certificate, and a valid assignment thereof, where the assignee claims title......
-
Flatt v. Wiggs
...This is the second appeal in this case. The facts out of which the litigation arose are stated in the former opinion, Wiggs et al. v. Flatt et al., 154 Okla. 94, 6 P.2d 690. ¶2 Therein the parties were given leave to recast their pleadings, which was done. ¶3 Upon remand, after the pleading......
- Flatt v. Wiggs