Yamie v. Willmott
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Citation | 1939 OK 130,88 P.2d 325,184 Okla. 382 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 28533 |
| Parties | YAMIE v. WILLMOTT et al. |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1939 |
1939 OK 130
88 P.2d 325
184 Okla. 382
YAMIE
v.
WILLMOTT et al.
Case Number: 28533
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: February 28, 1939
¶0 1. STIPULATIONS--Binding Effect of Stipulations as to Facts.
Stipulations made in open court admitting or agreeing oil the existence of certain facts for the purpose of trial are binding and conclusive on the parties as to such facts during the progress of the trial and on appeal.
2. TENANCY IN COMMON--Deeds Between Tenants in Common Held Absolute Conveyances and not Partition Deeds.
Where W., J., B., and C. are tenants in common in real estate, and W. executes a deed to C. in consideration of a trade with C., and W., as guardian of J. and B., also executes a guardian's deed to C. for a cash consideration, held, under the record, evidence insufficient to establish "voluntary partition" between W., J., B., and C., and both deeds constitute absolute conveyance and pass title to C.
3. ESTOPPEL--After-Acquired Title of Grantor Inuring to Benefit of Grantee.
Where a grantor conveys by warranty deed a greater interest in land than he at that time owns, and subsequently acquires an additional interest which lie purported to convey, such after-acquired title inures to the benefit of the grantee.
C. L. Hill and W. H. Ballard, for plaintiff in error.
R. J. Roberts, for defendants in error.
HURST, J.
¶1 This is an action by John W. Willmott and Eulahmae Reed against Willie Yamie to quiet title to an undivided interest in the mineral rights under three separate tracts of land. The land involved consists of a 20-acre tract originally allotted to Betsey Canard, a 40-acre tract originally allotted to Nessie Yamie, and another 40-acre tract originally allotted to Yama Larney. The trial court found that plaintiffs were the owners of an undivided threeeighths interest in the mineral rights under the Betsey Canard 20 and an undivided onehalf interest in the mineral rights under both the Nessie Yamie and the Yama Larney 40's. Defendant, Willie Yamie, appeals.
¶2 The evidence submitted by plaintiffs consists wholly of stipulations by the parties and exhibits introduced to establish title to the fractional interests claimed. The evidence submitted by defendant and admitted by the court consists wholly of exhibits introduced to show the title of defendant and to establish defendant's contention that plaintiffs have no interest in the Betsey Canard 20 and only an undivided one-twelfth interest in the Nessie Yamie 40, and an undivided one-sixth interest in the Yama Larney 40.
¶3 We shall not, in this opinion, attempt to detail the numerous conveyances comprising the chain of title to each tract, but shall limit our consideration to the contentions made by defendant in his brief, with a recital of only such facts as are necessary to a determination of such contentions.
¶4 1. Defendant presents one proposition, which he has subdivided into five "questions". The first and third require scant consideration. Under the first "question" it is contended that a deed in the chain of title from one Billie Larney to Ray W. Reed was not introduced in evidence, although a copy was attached to plaintiffs' petition, and further that it was not approved by the county court. However, it was stipulated by the parties at the trial that Billie Larney transferred all his right, title, and interest in the property involved by direct conveyance to Ray W. Reed, and this is a solemn judicial admission which dispenses with the necessity for further proof of this conveyance. 60 C. J. 81. Moreover, it appears from an order of approval introduced in evidence by plaintiffs that the conveyance in question was properly approved by the county court.
¶5 Under the third "question", it is contended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keota Mills & Elevator v. Gamble
...¶ 0, 184 Okla. 569, 89 P.2d 275 [Stipulation made in open court is binding and conclusive during trial and on appeal.]; Yamie v. Willmott, 1939 OK 130, ¶ 0, 184 Okla. 382, 88 P.2d 325 [Stipulations made in open court are binding and conclusive on parties during trial and on appeal.]; Bruner......
-
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Livshee, 3939
......Hoskins, Okl., 645 P.2d 507 (1982); City of Lawton v. Lewis, Okl., 566 P.2d 133, 134 (1977); Yamie v. Willmott, 184 Okl. 382, 88 P.2d 325, 326 (1939). 18 For the text of Rule 7.1, see supra note 5. 19 Committee on Professional Ethics v. Bromwell, ......
-
Bonner v. Oklahoma Rock Corp., 78986
......Hoskins, Okl., 645 P.2d 507 (1982); City of Lawton v. Lewis, Okl., 566 P.2d 133, 134 (1977); Yamie v. Willmott, 184 Okl. 382, 88 P.2d 325, 326 (1939). . 16 Courts may use the construction-of-contract rules to assist them in the interpretation of ......
-
State ex rel. Trimble v. City of Moore
......Hoskins, Okl., 645 P.2d 507, 508 (1982); City of Lawton v. Lewis, Okl., 566 P.2d 133, 134 (1977); Yamie v. Willmott, 184 Okl. 382, 88 P.2d 325, 326 (1939). . 15 In a common-law case in which the jury is waived the trial judge's resolution of the ......