Wilkinson v. Stone

• Decision Date: 21 June 1921
• Docket Number: Case Number: 10204
• Citation: 1921 OK 245,200 P. 196,82 Okla. 296
• Parties: WILKINSON et al. v. STONE et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1921 OK 245

200 P. 196

82 Okla. 296

WILKINSON et al. v. STONE et al.

Case Number: 10204

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: June 21, 1921

Syllabus

¶0 1. Vendor and Purchaser -- Interest of Person in Possession -- Notice. The possession of real property carries with it the presumption that the possession of the occupant is rightful, and it is the duty of those dealing with others than the party in possession regarding such property to ascertain the claim of the party in possession. The open, actual possession of such property gives notice to the world of just such interest as the possessor actually has therein.

2. Notice--Interest of Lessee of Land--Effect of Possession. On the 28th of March. 1917, S. leased from T., a full-blood citizen of the Creek Tribe of Indians, certain lands for agricultural purposes for a term of five years, beginning on the 1st of January, 1918. This lease was recorded. Thereafter, S. received from T. another agricultural lease, dated on the 14th day of April, 1917, covering the same lands, for a term of five years from the date of the lease. The last named lease was never placed on record. On the 1st day of January, 1918, S. went into possession of the lands leased. On the 2nd day of January, 1918, W. and S. secured from T. an agricultural lease on the same lands for a term of five years, beginning on the 1st of January, 1918. Held, that S., having gone into possession claiming under and by virtue of lease of April 14, 1917, and notwithstanding the fact that the void lease contract, of March 28, 1917, was the only lease of record. W. and S. were required, as a matter of law, to take notice by reason of S.'s possession of whatever right or interest he claimed in and to the land.

3. Pleading -- Admissions in Pleading. Pleadings in a civil case are not merely matters of form, but they are solemn declarations of the party. They present to the court what he claims the facts to be and, upon such statement, asks it to grant him relief, and he is bound by every statement against his interest made therein, and will not be heard to question the correctness thereof, so long as they remain a part of the record; and they may be taken advantage of by the adverse party at any state of the case, either in the trial court or on appeal if they are preserved in the transcript or case-made.

J. T. Smith, for plaintiffs in error.

Thrift & Davenport and Cheatham & Beaver, for defendants in error.

PITCHFORD, J.

¶1 This is an action in ejectment brought in the district court of Creek county, Oklahoma, by the plaintiffs in error, as plaintiffs below, against the defendants in error, as defendants below. The parties, hereafter, will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court. The controversy between the parties arises over two inconsistent agricultural leases made by Ada Tiger, a full-blood Creek Indian, upon her surplus allotment, held, respectively, by the plaintiffs on the one hand, and the defendant, A. H. Stone, on the other. The facts, briefly stated, are substantially as follows: On March 28, 1917, A. H. Stone leased the premises from the allottee, for agricultural purposes, for a period of five years running from the 1st day of January, 1918. This lease was regularly recorded. Thereafter, on April 14, 1917, the said A. H. Stone secured from the allottee another agricultural lease on the premises for a period of five years, beginning on April 14th, the date of the lease. This lease was never placed upon record. During the year of 1917, one James Cook occupied the premises as lessee under a lease ending December 31, 1917, and continued to occupy the premises from January 1, 1918, as a tenant of the defendant Stone. On the 2nd of January, 1918, the plaintiffs leased the premises from the allottee for a period of five years, commencing on the 1st day of January, 1918. It appears from the evidence that the plaintiffs had no actual notice or knowledge of the lease executed to the defendant on the 14th day of April 1917, and that at the time of the execution of their lease, on the 2nd day of January, 1918, they made inquiry of Cook as to his right to the possession of the premises and were informed by Cook that he was holding the same as a tenant of Stone. They made no inquiry of Stone. It is conceded by both parties that the record lease of the defendant Stone, dated on the 28th day of March, 1917, is void, for the reason that the same is an overlapping lease and bound the premises for a longer period than five years, in violation of the act of Congress of May 27, 1908. There was judgment in the trial court in favor of defendants, from which plaintiffs appeal. The first contention of plaintiffs is that, the defendant having placed the lease dated March 28, 1917, upon the records, and his possession being consistent therewith, this possession of the defendant is referable thereto, and that the plaintiffs were relieved of making further inquiry of the party in possession of any other different or additional title. There is some confusion in the authorities concerning the rights of one in possession of premises, under the facts as disclosed by the record in the instant case, and as to whether a subsequent lessee is justified in relying entirely upon knowledge gained from the records. The general rule is stated in Pomeroy's Eq. Juris. (2d Ed.) 2d vol., sec. 615, as follows:

"That an actual, open, visible and exclusive possession of a definite tract of land by one rightfully in possession or holding under a valid title is a constructive notice to subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers of whatsoever estate or interest in the land is held by the occupant, equivalent in its extent and effects to the notice given by the recording or registration of his title."

¶2 It is contended by the plaintiffs, however, that the general rule is not applicable in this case, and they cite a number of authorities in support of their contention, among which are the following: 39 Cyc. 1748; 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 803; Woods v. Farmere, 7 Watts 382, 32 Am. Dec. 772; Lance v. Gorman, 136 Pa. 200, 20 A. 792, 20 Am. St. Rep. 914; Aden v. City of Vallejo et al., 139 Cal. 165, 72 P. 905; Bonnell v. Allerton, 51 Iowa 166, 49 N.W. 857; Dutton v. McReynolds, 31 Minn. 66, 16 N.W. 468; F. B. Collins Inc. Co. et al. v. Waide, 70 Okla. 191, 173 P. 835; Riddle v. Keechi Oil & Gas Co., 74 Okla. 73, 176 P. 737; the conclusion to be drawn from these authorities being summarized in the 2d vol. Pomeroy's Eq. Juris. (2nd Ed.) sec. 616, p. 854, as follows:

"The decisions may be regarded as agreeing upon the conclusion, which also seems to be in perfect harmony with sound principle, that where a title under which the occupant holds has been put on record, and his possession is consistent with what thus appears of record, it shall not be a constructive notice of any additional or different title or interest to a purchaser who has relied upon the record, and has had no actual notice beyond what is thereby disclosed."

¶3 But the above rule is subject to the modifications as stated in Devlin on Real Estate (3rd Ed.) vol. 2, p. 1408, as follows:

"'The character of the possession which is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry, and which will be equivalent to actual notice of rights or equities in persons other than those who have a title upon record, is very well established by an unbroken current of authority. The possession and occupation must be actual, open and visible; it must not be equivocal, occasional, or for a special or temporary purpose; neither must it be consistent with the title of the apparent owner by the record.' It must be such as to be inconsistent with the title upon which the subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer relies."

¶4 After an examination of the authorities cited by plaintiffs, we are of the opinion that the correct conclusion to be reached therefrom is stated in F. B. Collins Inc. Co. et al. v. Waide (Okla.) supra, cited by plaintiffs, wherein the court quotes with approval from 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) p. 585, as follows:

"No general rule can be formulated which will govern in all cases the sufficiency of the facts or circumstances that make it a person's duty to inquire, but each case must rest on its own facts. A few guiding principles, however, have been recognized by the courts, and are here discussed. It may be premised that the means of knowledge must be available and of such a character that a prudent man might be expected to take the advantage of them. There must appear in the nature of the case such a connection between the facts discovered and the further facts to be discovered that the former may be said to furnish a reasonable and natural clue to the latter. Circumstances that are dubious or equivocal are not sufficient to take the place of actual notice."

¶5 As we understand, the authorities relied upon by plaintiffs seem to go to the extent that the record title under which the party in possession apparently claimed possession must be a valid title, or apparently valid. Under this rule, the defendants in the instant case could not legally claim the right to possession under and by virtue of the recorded lease, which was void, and this fact was well known to plaintiffs. So far as the records disclosed, the allottee had a complete right to lease the premises to other parties, notwithstanding the fact that the lease of March 28, 1917, was recorded. The possession of defendants, claiming said lands for agricultural purposes for the year of 1918, under a void lease, was inconsistent with this apparent right of the allottee. When plaintiffs examined the records, they found, recorded, the lease of the 28th day of March, 1917, for the term of five years, to begin the 1st day of January, 1918. This lease being void, as the same was for a longer period than five years, the allottee being a full-blood Indian, the plaintiffs could readily see that the record gave the defendants no right, or apparent right, to...