Wright v. Saltmarsh, Case Number: 23852
| Decision Date | 15 October 1935 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 23852 |
| Parties | WRIGHT et al. v. SALTMARSH |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Judgment--Where One Died Intestate Leaving Estate of Real and Personal Property in Kansas and Estate of Real Property in Oklahoma and Leaving Wife and a Father who Subsequently Died Intestate, Decree in County Court of Oklahoma Distributing Entire Oklahoma Estate to Surviving Wife Held Res Judicata as to Rights of Heirs of Father.
G. G. S. died intestate in California in 195, leaving an estate in Rice county, Kan., consisting of real and personal property, and also an estate in Grant county, Okla., consisting of real property. He also left a wife, M. O. S., and a father, W. J. S. W. J. S. died intestate in 1919, leaving heirs. Subsequent to the death of W. J. S. the surviving wife of G. G. S. was appointed administratrix of the estate of G. G. S. by the county court of Grant county, Okla. In the final settlement of the estate of G. G. S. in Grant county, the entire estate was awarded by the decree of distribution to the surviving wife, M. O. S. Held: That the order and decree of distribution of the county court of Grant county distributing the entire estate to the surviving wife, M. O. S., was binding and conclusive on the heirs of W. J. S. and res judicata as to them.
2. Same--Decree of Kansas Probate Distributing Entire Kansas Estate to Surviving Wife Held not Res Judicata as to Her Rights in Oklahoma Estate.
G. G. S. died intestate in California, leaving an estate in Rice county, Kan., consisting of real and personal property and also a farm in Grant county, Okla. Probate proceedings were held upon the estate of G. G. S. in Rice county, Kan., and an order and decree of distribution was made therein. Held: That the order and decree of distribution made by the probate court in Rice county, Kan., distributing the entire estate in Kansas to the surviving wife of G. G. S. is not binding, conclusive, or res judicata as to her rights and claims to the estate of G. G. S., deceased, in the state of Oklahoma.
3. Judgment--"Collateral Attack."
A collateral attack on a judicial proceeding is an attempt to avoid, defeat, or evade it or deny its force and effect in some incidental proceeding not provided by law for the express purpose of attacking it.
4. Same--Fraud Which Vitiates Judgment and Authorizes Its Vacation.
Fraud which vitiates a judgment and which will authorize a court to vacate it, is fraud extraneous of the record by which the court was imposed upon in the proceeding and by which the party complaining was prevented from having his interest fairly presented or fully considered by the court. Failure of a party litigant to disclose to the court facts within his knowledge which if known by the court would defeat his recovery is not such fraud as would authorize the setting aside of a judgment by a col lateral attack.
Appeal from District Court, Grant County; J. W. Bird, Judge.
Action by Dora Wright, Rosa Wright, Ida Buck, R. S. Saltmarsh, Goldie Slaughter, Hubbard Saltmarsh, and Mary Belle Salt marsh Hughes against Mary O. Saltmarsh. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
J. E. Falkenberg and W. H. C. Taylor, for plaintiffs in error.
Breeden & Breeden, for defendant in error.
¶1 The parties will be designated hereinafter as they appeared in the trial court, that is, the plaintiffs in error as plaintiffs and the defendant in error as defendant.
¶2 This action was instituted by the plaintiffs filing their petition in the district court of Grant county, on the 11th day of March, 1931, and subsequently filing an amended petition. The defendant having filed her answer and cross-petition, issues were finally joined between said parties by the plaintiffs filing their reply and amendment thereto. Various demurrers and motions were filed to the pleadings by both parties to said action, but as a judgment of dismissal of this action was rendered against the plaintiff on objection of defendant to the introduction of evidence, it would serve no useful purpose to consume time and give attention to other then the pleadings which finally made up the issues between said parties. The facts out of which this case grew, as shown by the pleadings and admissions of the parties, are substantially as follows:
¶3 Geo. G. Saltmarsh and the defendant were married in Rice county, Kan., in the month of May, 1911. At the time of the marriage of said parties, Geo. G. Saltmarsh was the owner of a mercantile store located at Lyons, Kan. In September, 1913, Geo. G. Saltmarsh exchanged his stock of goods in said store at Lyons, Kan., for a farm in Grant county, Okla., and which was then owned by Charles Gain and Millie F. Cain, the brother-in-law and sister of said Geo. G. Saltmarsh. At the time of the exchange of the stock of goods at Lyons, Kan., for the Grant county, Okla., farm, there was a mortgage against said land for the sum of $ 3,500. The value placed upon said farm in the exchange for said stock of goods was $ 8,000. At the time of the exchange, Geo. G. Saltmarsh paid off the mortgage on said farm and received as evidence of the amount of said payment the personal note of Charles Cain and Millie F. Cain, for the sum of $ 3 500. After making the-exchange of the stock of goods for the Grant county farm, Geo. G. Saltmarsh and his wife removed to the state of California, in which state he died on the 15th day of September, 1915. At the time of the death of Geo. G. Salt marsh he owned some real estate in the state of Kansas, as well as personal property, consisting of stocks, notes and bills receivable. In October, 1915, the defendant filed a petition in the probate court of Rice county, Kan., asking appointment as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. Upon her petition she was appointed administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, and at the conclusion of said probate proceedings was awarded the en tire estate in said state as being the sole heir of her deceased husband, Geo. G. Salt marsh.
¶4 On November 1, 1915, the defendant filed a petition in the county court of Grant county, Okla., being case No. 2218, asking the appointment of herself as administratrix of the estate of her said deceased husband. Further proceedings were had in said county court on the petition of said Mary O. Saltmarsh, but no appointment was made thereunder.
¶5 At the time of the death of Geo. G. Salt marsh, he left him surviving W. J. Salt marsh, his father, who resided at La Plata, Mo. W. J. Saltmarsh died intestate, on the 26th day of July, 1919. At the time of the death of W. J. Saltmarsh, he left him surviving as his heirs, Dora A. Wright, Rosa Wright, Ida Buck, R. S. Saltmarsh, Goldie Slaughter, Hubbard Saltmarsh, and Mary Belle Saltmarsh Hughes, who are the plaintiffs in error in this case.
¶6 On the 27th day of September, 1919, after the death of W. J. Saltmarsh, Mary I. Slaughter and Rosa Wright filed a petition, in case No. 2616, in the county court of Grant county, Okla., requesting the appointment of Dwight Wilson of Medford, Okla., as administrator of the estate of Geo. G. Saltmarsh, deceased. An order was made by said court for the hearing of said petition to be had on the 9th day of October, 1919. Notices of the hearing of said petition were duly posted and published. On October 14, 1919 Mary O. Saltmarsh filed in said cause, case No. 2616, her written objections to the appointment of Dwight Wilson as administrator of the estate of Geo. G. Salt marsh, deceased, and asked that she be appointed administratrix of said estate, and stated that she was the surviving wife of Geo. G. Saltmarsh, deceased, and a competent person to administer said estate, that she had never waived her right to an appointment as such administratrix, and was entitled under the law to such an appointment. She further alleged that as such surviving wife she inherited one-half of said estate and was personally interested in the administration thereof- that she was a nonresident of the state of Oklahoma, but that before entering upon the duties of such trust she would appoint a resident agent as required by the statutes.
¶7 On the date set for the hearing of said petition the hearing thereof was continued by the court until the 13th day of October, 1919. On the hearing of said petition and objections interposed by Mary O. Saltmarsh, the court found the allegations of the petition to be true and also found the allegations of the objections to be true, and further found that Mary O. Saltmarsh, the widow of said deceased, under the law was en titled to and a fit and proper person to be appointed administratrix of said estate, and ordered that letters of administration upon said estate be issued to Mary O. Saltmarsh, upon her taking and subscribing the oath of office required by law and executing a bond in the penal sum of $ 400. On the same date letters of administration were issue to said Mary O. Saltmarsh, E. H. Breeden of Medford, Okla., was appointed as her resident agent. On the date of the filing of the petition by Rosa Wright and Mary I. Slaughter in case No. 2616, asking the appointment of Dwight Wilson as administrator of the estate of Geo. G. Saltmarsh, said petitioners also made application by petition, for the appointment of an administrator of the estate of W. J. Saltmarsh, deceased, and in pursuance thereof Lois Tharp was appointed administratrix of said deceased estate, and qualified as such and entered into the discharge of the duties of the trust. On the 1st day of March, 1920, Mary O. Saltmarsh filed her final account and petition for distribution of said estate, in which petition she alleged that at the time she and the decedent were married he was running and operating a general store, and after their marriage deceased and petitioner operated said store and built the same up and increased the stock and later traded the same for the Grant county farm, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial