Adams v. Mottley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Adams v. Mottley

1924 OK 5, 223 P. 356, 97 Okla. 230, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1090

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 15, 1924

Docket12667

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1924 OK 5 (Adams v. Mottley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Mottley, 1924 OK 5, 223 P. 356, 97 Okla. 230, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1090 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C.

The plaintiff commenced his action against the defendants in the district court of L.ogan county, for possession of the real estate described in petition and for an accounting on rents and other items of expense pertaining to the subject-matter. As grounds for his cause of action the plaintiff alleged that his mother,- Lottie M. Mott-ley, was the owner of the property and in possession thereof at the time of her death in 1912, and that he is the sole and surviving heir of the deceased. H. M. Adams was appointed administrator of the estate in 1912, and rented and collected *231 rents on the property. The taxes for 1910 on the property became delinquent and the property was sold for taxes and purchased by the county. The county caused the resale of the property for taxes in the year 1914, at which sale A. D. Adams, the wife of the administrator, became the purchaser. Among the several recitals in the tax deed was one to the effect, that the sale .was made on due and legal notice. The plaintiff resided at all times in another state and alleged that, he did not ascertain the existence of the tax deed until about ten days prior to the commencement of this action. The plaintiff tendered the delinquent taxes, costs, and penalties, and prayed recovery for the reasonable rental value of the property. It appears that the defendant hadi made certain improvements- on the property in the meantime. IVheu this case was called for trial A. 11. Adams, the apparent holder of the title under the. tax deed, and the wife of I-I. M. Adams, the administrator, made default, and H. M. Adams was substituted in her personal capacity for his wife, as defendant. In the trial of this cause judgment went for the plaintiff for possession of the property and an accounting was had between the parties, which resulted in a money judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for $206. The defendants have appealed the cause to this court and assign various errors for reversal of the judgment. As the tax deed under which the defendants claim merely stated a legal conclusion upon the part of the officer preparing the deed as to certain acts and proceedings prerequisite to a valid deed, had in connection with the sale and resale of the property for taxi's, the instant case comes within the rule applied in Pierce r. Barrett, which was decided on October 23, 1923, 93 Okla. 283, 220 Pac. 652.

We have examined the record in relation to the accounting had between, the parties, and find that the evidence supports the judgment therefon in favor of the plaintiff. Having reached the foregoing conclusion, it would not serve any good purpose to make further examination of errors assigned and questions involved herein.

Therefore, it is recommended that this cause be affirmed.

By the Oourt: It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C.

The plaintiff commenced his action against the defendants in the district court of L.ogan county, for possession of the real estate described in petition and for an accounting on rents and other items of expense pertaining to the subject-matter. As grounds for his cause of action the plaintiff alleged that his mother,- Lottie M. Mott-ley, was the owner of the property and in possession thereof at the time of her death in 1912, and that he is the sole and surviving heir of the deceased. H. M. Adams was appointed administrator of the estate in 1912, and rented and collected *231 rents on the property. The taxes for 1910 on the property became delinquent and the property was sold for taxes and purchased by the county. The county caused the resale of the property for taxes in the year 1914, at which sale A. D. Adams, the wife of the administrator, became the purchaser. Among the several recitals in the tax deed was one to the effect, that the sale .was made on due and legal notice. The plaintiff resided at all times in another state and alleged that, he did not ascertain the existence of the tax deed until about ten days prior to the commencement of this action. The plaintiff tendered the delinquent taxes, costs, and penalties, and prayed recovery for the reasonable rental value of the property. It appears that the defendant hadi made certain improvements- on the property in the meantime. IVheu this case was called for trial A. 11. Adams, the apparent holder of the title under the. tax deed, and the wife of I-I. M. Adams, the administrator, made default, and H. M. Adams was substituted in her personal capacity for his wife, as defendant. In the trial of this cause judgment went for the plaintiff for possession of the property and an accounting was had between the parties, which resulted in a money judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for $206. The defendants have appealed the cause to this court and assign various errors for reversal of the judgment. As the tax deed under which the defendants claim merely stated a legal conclusion upon the part of the officer preparing the deed as to certain acts and proceedings prerequisite to a valid deed, had in connection with the sale and resale of the property for taxi's, the instant case comes within the rule applied in Pierce r. Barrett, which was decided on October 23, 1923, 93 Okla. 283, 220 Pac. 652.

We have examined the record in relation to the accounting had between, the parties, and find that the evidence supports the judgment therefon in favor of the plaintiff. Having reached the foregoing conclusion, it would not serve any good purpose to make further examination of errors assigned and questions involved herein.

Therefore, it is recommended that this cause be affirmed.

By the Oourt: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 5, 223 P. 356, 97 Okla. 230, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-mottley-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack