Bowman v. Lamb

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bowman v. Lamb

1924 OK 236, 224 P. 688, 98 Okla. 201, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1182

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 26, 1924

Docket11897

StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK 236 (Bowman v. Lamb) 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

Bowman v. Lamb, 1924 OK 236, 224 P. 688, 98 Okla. 201, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1182 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C.

Plaintiff for her cause of action alleged that she was married to Geo. Bowman during the minority of the latter, and in the year 1912, in Salt Lake City, Utah. At the time of the marriage the husband was a minor and living with his father, George Bowman, in Salt Lake. The father of George Bowman, with his family, left Oklahoma and resided in the northwest until his death about the year 1914. The plaintiff. alleges the land in controversy was the allotment of her husband, George Bowman, and that it was the intention of the plaintiff and her husband to move to Okmulgee and occupy the land as a homestead. The land in question was never occupied by plaintiff or her husband as a homestead. In fact George Bowman had never lived on the land. The plaintiff further alleged while she and her husbanrj were making preparations to move to Oklahoma to occupy the land as a homestead, certain parties came to Salt Lake just as her husband arrived at his majority and induced her husband to execute and deliver deed conveying the property in question to defendants and their grantors, and that *202 she did not join in the execution of the deed. The defendants filed general demurrer to the petition which was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff appealed the cause to this court, assigning the action of the trial court in sustaining demurrer as error for reversal. The question presented by the appeal is disposed of adversely to her contention by the case of Kerns et al. v. Warden et al., 88 Okla 297, 213 Pac. 70; Johnson v. Johnston, 82 Okla. 259, 200 Pac. 204; Harris et al. v. Cherokee State Bank, 82 Okla. 151, 198 Pac. 878; Hyde v. Ishmael, 42 Okla. 279, 143 Pac. 1044.

These eases fully support the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff's petition, and fully dispense with the need for further discussion of the question presented by this appeal.

Therefore, it is recommended that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C.

Plaintiff for her cause of action alleged that she was married to Geo. Bowman during the minority of the latter, and in the year 1912, in Salt Lake City, Utah. At the time of the marriage the husband was a minor and living with his father, George Bowman, in Salt Lake. The father of George Bowman, with his family, left Oklahoma and resided in the northwest until his death about the year 1914. The plaintiff. alleges the land in controversy was the allotment of her husband, George Bowman, and that it was the intention of the plaintiff and her husband to move to Okmulgee and occupy the land as a homestead. The land in question was never occupied by plaintiff or her husband as a homestead. In fact George Bowman had never lived on the land. The plaintiff further alleged while she and her husbanrj were making preparations to move to Oklahoma to occupy the land as a homestead, certain parties came to Salt Lake just as her husband arrived at his majority and induced her husband to execute and deliver deed conveying the property in question to defendants and their grantors, and that *202 she did not join in the execution of the deed. The defendants filed general demurrer to the petition which was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff appealed the cause to this court, assigning the action of the trial court in sustaining demurrer as error for reversal. The question presented by the appeal is disposed of adversely to her contention by the case of Kerns et al. v. Warden et al., 88 Okla 297, 213 Pac. 70; Johnson v. Johnston, 82 Okla. 259, 200 Pac. 204; Harris et al. v. Cherokee State Bank, 82 Okla. 151, 198 Pac. 878; Hyde v. Ishmael, 42 Okla. 279, 143 Pac. 1044.

These eases fully support the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff's petition, and fully dispense with the need for further discussion of the question presented by this appeal.

Therefore, it is recommended that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 236, 224 P. 688, 98 Okla. 201, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-lamb-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack