Winona Oil Co. v. Barnes

• Decision Date: 10 May 1921
• Docket Number: Case Number: 11559
• Parties: WINONA OIL CO. v. BARNES.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1921 OK 169

200 P. 981

83 Okla. 248

WINONA OIL CO. v. BARNES.

Case Number: 11559

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: May 10, 1921

Syllabus

¶0 1. Guardian and Ward -- Jurisdiction of Court--Sale of Oil Leases on Minor's Land. The county courts of this state have jurisdiction in proper cases, where the court finds it is for the best interest of the minor, to authorize the guardian to sell an oil and gas lease upon the lands of his ward.

2. Same--Duration of Lease. The county court has jurisdiction, where he finds it is essential and to the best interest of the minor, to authorize the guardian to sell an oil and gas lease upon the land of the ward, and if for the protection of the minor's interest and the best interest of the minor's estate, the term of the lease may extend beyond the minority of the ward.

3. Same--Sale of Lease--Nature of Transaction. The sale of an oil and gas lease, including the approval thereof, by the county court makes the transaction in the nature of a judicial sale.

4. Guardian and Ward -- Nature of Guardian's Title. The relation between the guardian and the ward does not give the court or the guardian legal title to the ward's estate, but both legal and beneficial title remain in the ward and the power of the court to deal with said estate is that conferred upon the court by the statute and the Constitution of this state, and the power of the guardian is a naked trust not coupled with an interest.

5. Courts--County Courts -- Rules of Probate Procedure--Compliance. The rule of this court promulgated June 11, 1914 (47 Okla. xiv), relating to procedure of county courts in probate matters, has the force and effect of law, and is binding upon the court as well as upon the parties to the action and cannot be dispensed with to suit the circumstances in any particular case.

6. Guardian and Ward -- Powers of Court --Sale of Oil Lease--Requisites. Neither the statutes nor Constitution of the state confers upon the county courts of this state power or authority to order and direct the guardian to execute an oil and gas lease upon the lands of the ward to a certain person for a designated sum, thereby preventing competitive bidding and preventing all other persons from participating at the sale or bidding at the sale.

7. Judgment -- Validity -- Collateral Attack. Where the record in the case affirmatively discloses that the court was without power to make the order or decree it assumed to make, such order is void, subject to collateral attack for want of jurisdiction in the court to make the same.

8. Same--Jurisdictional Elements. A judgment is void when it affirmatively appears from the inspection of the judgment roll that any one of three following jurisdictional elements are absent: First, jurisdiction over the person; second, jurisdiction of the subject-matter; and third, judicial power to render the particular judgment.

West, Sherman, Davidson & Moore, for plaintiff in error.

B. B. Blakeney, J. H. Maxey, Hubert Ambrister, Christy Russell, and Leake & Henry, for defendant in error.

MCNEILL, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Washington county, canceling an oil and gas lease executed by a guardian on the lands of his ward. The following is a brief summary of the facts, necessary to be considered: Henry N. Barnes, a member of the Cherokee Tribe of Indians, received his allotment, being the land in question. On November 14, 1906, his mother, as guardian of his person and estate, executed an oil and gas lease upon the allotment to the Winona Oil Company in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, receiving a bonus therefor and one-tenth royalty. The lease by its terms expired December 24, 1917, and the ward reached his majority December 25, 1917. The Winona Oil Company developed the premises and drilled 12 producing wells upon the land, and produced therefrom more than one million dollars' worth of oil and gas. The mother, with her son, the plaintiff herein, moved to Dallas, Texas, and S. M. Redburn was appointed guardian, in her stead, by the county court of Cherokee county, where the guardianship proceedings were pending. On June 2, 1917, S. M. Redburn, as guardian, executed the oil and gas lease in question to the Winona Oil Company for the consideration of $ 1,000 and one-eighth royalty, for a period as long as oil and gas were produced in paying quantities from said premises. After Henry N. Barnes reached his majority, he commenced this proceeding to cancel said oil and gas lease, contending the same was obtained by fraud, and pleaded certain facts relied upon as fraud, and further alleged that at the time of the sale a lease for the same terms and the same royalty was of the reasonable value of $ 50,000, and that the consideration was so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience of a court of equity. Second: That the guardianship proceedings relating to the sale of the oil and gas lease were void for the reason the county court failed to comply with rule 9 (47 Okla. xvi) relating to probate procedure, promulgated by this court relating to the leasing of minor's land for oil and gas purposes. Upon the trial of the case to the court, the court made a general finding in favor of the plaintiff, Barnes, and against the defendant Winona Oil Company, and canceled the oil and gas lease. From said judgment, the Winona Oil Company has appealed to this court and for reversal presents its argument under four propositions. The first is stated as follows: The alleged invalidity of both the lease and the order authorizing and approving its execution on the ground of the asserted failure to comply with the probate rules prescribed by the Justices of this court. The plaintiff in error admits that the rules adopted by this court and referred to have the force and effect of a statute, according to the holding of this court in the case of State v. Kight, 49 Okla. 202, 152 P. 362, but contends that the rules are simply rules of procedure, and that a rule of procedure is not mandatory in the sense that the acts done in violation of it are void. It is contended that the rules were recognized by the parties, and the court, and probate attorney waived the compliance with said rule, as they had authority to do under rule 18 (47 Okla. xvii). Rule 9 of the probate rules reads as follows:

"No oil and gas or other mineral lease, covering lands, belonging to minors or incompetents will be approved except after sale in open court to the highest and best responsible bidder. All petitions for the approval of oil and gas leases shall be filed five days before the same are sold as provided herein. And notice of such sale must be given by posters and by publication where publication is practicable."

¶2 Rule 18 reads as follows:

"All advertising not required by law may be waived by the consent of the county court upon the approval of the probate attorney or tribal attorney."

¶3 The record disclosed a petition for authority to sell an oil and gas lease was filed June 2, 1917, and the county court made an order authorizing the sale on said date, and the sale was consummated on said date, and confirmed by the court on said date. The order authorizing the guardian to lease said land is as follows:

"And it appearing from said petition and from the evidence that it would be to the manifest interest of his said ward that a new commercial lease be executed, covering the land hereinafter described.

¶4 "It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the said guardian execute a commercial lease for oil and gas purposes to the Winona Oil Company for as long as oil and gas is produced in paying quantities on the following described land, situate in Washington county, state of Oklahoma, to wit:

"North half (N.1/2) of southwest quarter (S.W.1/4) of section 4, township 26, N., range 13 E., containing eighty acres (80) in consideration of the sum of $ 1,000 and a royalty of 12 1/2 per cent. of all oil and gas produced."

¶5 We will direct our attention to the order directing the sale of the lease to the Winona Oil Company, and determine whether the court had jurisdiction to make such an order. It has been held by this court that the county courts of this state have jurisdiction in proper cases, where the court finds it for the best interests of the minor, to authorize a guardian to sell an oil and gas mining lease on the land of his ward. Duff v. Keaton, 33 Okla. 92, 124 P. 291. It has been further held: The county courts of this state have jurisdiction, where they find it would be to the best interest of the ward. to authorize the guardian to sell an oil and gas mining lease on the land of the ward for a period to and extending beyond the minority of the ward. Ardizzonne v. Archer, 71 Okla. 292, 177 P. 554; Hoyt v. Fixico, 71 Okla. 103, 175 P. 517. The federal courts in two opinions have held that the sale of the oil and gas lease, including the approval thereof by the county court, makes the transaction in the nature of a judicial sale. Etchen v. Cheney, 235 F. 104; Laurel Oil Co. v. Galbreath, 165 F. 162, 91 C.C.A. 196. It has also been held that:

"The relation between guardian and ward does not give the guardian a legal title to the ward's estate, but both the legal and beneficial title to personal and real property remain in the ward, and the power of the guardian is a naked trust not coupled with an interest." Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Cowen, 71 Okla. 299, 177 P. 563.

¶6 In the case of Duff v. Keaton, supra, this court used the following language:

"And the procedure followed in this record harmonizes with that in force in the state for the sale of personalty by order and approval of the probate court."

¶7 The court in the body of the opinion set out the petition asking for authority to lease the lands, the order of the court authorizing the guardian to sell the oil and gas lease to some responsible person, the return of the guardian, disclosing to whom...