Wilson v. Lee Evans Drilling Co.
| Citation | 322 P.2d 630 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 37228,37228 |
| Parties | Caroline WILSON, formerly Caroline Bruner, and Aaron Sancho, Plaintiffs in Error, v. LEE EVANS DRILLING CO., Inc., a corporation; Marilou J. Hagen; Arthur E. Hagen; Al D. Pierce; S. J. Darrah; C. L. Billingsley; Walter Billingsley; Horsley, Epton & Culp, a co-partnership; Kathryn M. Harris, Trustee; Sarah Black; Lula Jacobs, one and the same person as Honey Bruner; Melvina Bruner, now Homedy; George Huckleberry; Isadora Buckner; Edythe S. Whitney; E. W. Whitney; Mae S. Bruner; Eva Bruner, now Hollins; Ramsey Bruner; B. D. Lack; Anna Head Evans Scoggins, one and the same person as Anna May Head; James B. Miller, Trustee; F. P. Swan; Gene Hensley; Eugene Douthit, C. P. J. Collins; Arlie A. Collins; W. W. Atkins; S. W. Bates; W. S. Damron; Grace Gladden, now Damron; H. A. Lowery; Ruth Lowery; H. W. Courtney; and Stanolind Oil Purchasing Company, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A right, question, or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies, although the subsequent suit is on a different cause of action; and a plea setting up the former adjudication of a fact, right, or question distinctly put in issue between the same parties or their privies is not a plea in bar, but a plea of estoppel by judgment. Identity of causes of action is not a necessary element in the plea of estoppel by judgment, but it is necessary that the point upon which the plea of estoppel by judgment is based is in issue in the latter case and was in issue and decided in the former.
2. In enrollment proceedings on enrollment of members of the Five Civilized Tribes, recitals in respect to parentage and other identifying circumstances are not conclusive.
3. The designation of the parents of an enrolled member of one of the Five Civilized Tribes in the enrollment proceedings may be the subject of collateral attack to show error, and it can be held to be incorrect, where the evidence to that effect is clear, cogent, and convincing.
4. In an action of equitable cognizance where the evidence is conflicting the finding thereon of the trial court will not be disturbed unless clearly against the weight thereof.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Seminole County; Bob Aubrey, Trial Judge.
Action to quiet title and determine heirs. Judgment for plaintiffs and defendant cross-petitioners appeal. Affirmed.
V. E. Stinchcomb, Baker H. Melone, Bulla, Melone & Meister, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
Horsley, Epton & Culp, Allen G. Nichols, H. W. Carver, G. O. Wallace, Wewoka, Smith, Johns, Smith & Neuffer, Oklahoma City, Fellows & Fellows, Tulsa, for defendants in error.
This action was initiated by the owners of oil and gas leases on the allotment of Ramsey Bruner, deceased, Seminole Freedman, to quiet their title to the leasehold estate against the claims of plaintiffs in error. Aaron Sancho, one of the plaintiffs in error, answered and cross-petitioned, asserting his claim as a son of a deceased daughter of the allottee, and interpleaded as defendants in the action all others known to be heirs of the allottee, or who claimed an interest in the allotment, Caroline Wilson, the other plaintiff in error, also answered and cross-petitioned, asserting her claim as a daughter of the allottee. All other persons claiming as heirs of the allottee, or their devisees or assignees, asserting an interest in the allotment, pleaded their respective claims in answer to the plaintiffs in error's cross-petitions, and the action proceeded to trial. Aaron Sancho and Caroline Wilson will be referred to hereinafter either individually or as plaintiffs in error and all other parties will be referrred to as defendants in error.
The plaintiffs in error's claim to the ownership of an interest in the property is based upon their contention that Ramsey Bruner, according to the custom and practice, took as a second or plural wife, Zadie Stidham, by whom he was the father of Caroline and of Pearly, now deceased, mother of Aaron Sancho. The events material to the determination of this action occurred in the last part of the Nineteenth Century, and the testimony of the many witnesses was conflicting on the factual issues. It appears, however, that plural marriages were recognized in the Seminole Nation, and the validity of this practice will be taken as an established fact in our discussion.
Prior to any plural marriage, Ramsey Bruner was married to Sarah by whom he had five children: Palesa, Bud, August, Melvina, and Solomon. The trial court also found that a Gertrude J. Martin, nee Bruner, was an illegitimate but recognized daughter of the allottee. Only Melvina was living at the time of trial. The other defendants in error claim as heirs, devisees or assignees of these undisputed heirs of the allottee. Ramsey Bruner died in 1905, and the property has been in the possession of some of his aforementioned heirs since that time.
In answer to the cross-petition, among other defenses, the defendants in error pleaded certain judgments as a bar to the claim of plaintiffs in error. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law the trial court found that plaintiffs in error were estopped by judgment. This issue, as well as the facts concerning their birth, necessitates a separate consideration of the respective claims of plaintiffs in error.
Aaron Sancho.
One of the judgments pleaded by defendants in error was the decree of distribution in the Estate of Bud Bruner. In March, 1954, hearing was held in the county court of Seminole County on the petition for distribution and discharge of the administrator in the Estate of Bud Bruner. At that hearing Aaron Sancho appeared personally and therein claimed to be the grandson of Ramsey Bruner, the child of a deceased sister of the deceased. It appears from the evidence here that this issue was litigated in that hearing. In its decree of distribution the County Court of Seminole County held that Bud Bruner died intestate; that 'he left no widow, no children and no child of any deceased child surviving him, but left as his sole and only heirs at law' Melvina, a sister; Lula Jacobs, a niece, daughter of Palesa; Solomon, a brother; and Sarah Black and Eva Bruner, nieces, and Ramsey Bruner, a nephew, children of August. Since it is and was undisputed that Aaron is the child of Pearly, the effect of this decree was to determine that Pearly was not the legitimate child of Ramsey Bruner, for by our statute of descent the property descended to the brothers and sisters and to the children of any deceased brother or sister by right of representation. 84 O.S.1951 § 213(3). Thus the identical issue upon which Aaron Sancho must prevail in this action has been determined heretofore contrary to his contention, in an action to which he was an adverse party to the acknowledged legitimate heirs and descendants of the allottee, defendants in error here. He is precluded in this action by the determination there.
Craig v. Roxoline Petroleum Co., 170 Okl. 307, 39 P.2d 575; see also McKee v. Producers' & Refiners' Corporation, 170 Okl. 599, 41 P.2d 466; Reinhart & Donovan Co. v. Guaranty Abstract Co., 201 Okl. 334, 205 P.2d 881; Garrison v. Bonham, 207 Okl. 599, 251 P.2d 790. The cases cited by the plaintiffs in error do not conflict with our conclusion. Johnson v. Whelan, 186 Okl. 511, 98 P.2d 1103, recognized the rule where the factual issue had in fact been determined by the prior adjudication. So also did Harding v. Taylor, Okl., 272 P.2d 443. These cases distinguished the broad application of res judicata from the more limited application of the principle where a particular issue within a cause of action has been adjudicated. The more limited rule is usually referred to as an estoppel by judgment or verdict and does not require all of the identity of elements necessary to create a complete bar to a cause of action. Freeman on Judgments, 5th Ed., §§ 627-677. Lincoln v. Herndon, 141 Okl. 212, 285 P. 120, and Jones v. Douglass, 152 Okl. 89, 5 P.2d 345, presented a different situation from that presented here. Those cases involved the devolution of Indian ancestral estates prior to statehood and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boy Scouts of America, Inc. v. Thompson
...or fact may later be presented as an estoppel by judgment in a different cause of action between the same parties. In Wilson v. Lee Evans Drilling Co., Okl., 322 P.2d 630, we 'A right, question, or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction can......
-
Lewis v. Aubrey
...Inc. v. Thompson, (Okl.) 380 P.2d 705, Wilkey v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., (Okl.) 322 P.2d 1058, and Wilson v. Lee Evans Drilling Co., (Okl.) 322 P.2d 630) if it is affirmed by this Court in the pending appeal (or otherwise becomes final) will estop Patsy Jane Stiles from effectiv......
-
Laws v. Fisher
...by the prior judgment is based be in issue in the later case, and have been in issue and decided in the former. Wilson v. Lee Evans Drilling Co., 1957, Okl., 322 P.2d 630; Boy Scouts of America, Inc. v. Thompson, 1963, Okl., 380 P.2d 705. Or, as stated in a syllabus to Wilkey v. Southwester......
-
Jewell v. Huddleston
...against the weight thereof.' Mayer v. Pettigrew, Okl., 272 P.2d 411. See also Rockett v. Ford, Okl., 326 P.2d 787; Wilson v. Lee Evans Drilling Co., Okl., 322 P.2d 630; Lumm v. Colliard, Okl., 317 P.2d 273; and Cox v. Kelley, Okl., 295 P.2d There was ample evidence to sustain the trial cour......