Burrus v. Funk

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Burrus v. Funk

1911 OK 363, 119 P. 976, 29 Okla. 677, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 357

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 14, 1911

Docket1064

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1911 OK 363 (Burrus v. Funk) 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

Burrus v. Funk, 1911 OK 363, 119 P. 976, 29 Okla. 677, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 357 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

TURNER, C. J.

This is an action for unlawful detainer, originally commenced by defendant in error, as plaintiff, before a justice of the peace in and for Wagoner township and county, to recover of plaintiff in error, as defendant, possession of certain real estate. For answer defendant denied plaintiff to be the owner of the land, that he was entitled to possession, and the jurisdiction of the justice to try the cause. There was judg *678 ment for. plaintiff, and a like result on trial anew in the county court, to which the case was appealed. Defendant brings the case here.

The evidence discloses that defendant was in possession under a lease from the former owner which had expired and was seeking to retain possession by holding over under an alleged new lease which he set up. Assailing plaintiff’s title which was a deed from defendant’s landlord, introduced for the purpose of proving plaintiff’s right of possession, defendant sought to show that the same was void because of the alleged minority, when made, of plaintiff’s grantor; and, the issue of fact being determined against him, he now claims that the title to the land being thus involved, the justice — and, on appeal, the county court — was ousted of jurisdiction to try the cause. Such not being a proper subject of trial, the jurisdiction of neither court was affected thereby. In Vansellous v. Huene, 26 Okla. 243, 108 Pac. 1102, the situation was strikingly similar. There, as here, defendant was in possession under a -lease, and after the expiration of his term refused to deliver possession to the purchaser. The court said:

“The next objection raises the question of the sufficiency of the deed to the plaintiff, and puts in issue the title to the property. We do not deem this a proper subject for trial in the present case. ‘Forcible entry and detainer,’ or ‘forcible entry and unlawful detainer,’ is a proceeding at law and the right to possession is the sole question involved, and evidences of title are only material in so far as they tend to show right of possession, and no equities of parties can be determined. Anderson v. Ferguson, 12 Okla. 307, 71 Pac. 225. There are a great many other cases to the same effect in this jurisdiction; but the question is so well settled here and elsewhere that we do not deem it necessary to cite them.”

See, also, Powers v. Myers, 25 Okla. 165, 105 Pac. 674.

We are therefore of opinion that both courts had jurisdiction; and that, as the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial is not assigned as error, either in the petition in error or in the briefs, of plaintiff in error, and the only remaining errors assigned are those alleged to have occurred in the *679 trial of the cause, and hence we cannot consider them (Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259, 54 Pac. 467; Beall v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 7 Okla. 285, 54 Pac. 474; Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Bank of Stroud, 12 Okla. 168, 70 Pac. 205; DeVitt et al v. City of El Reno et al., 28 Okla. 315, 114 Pac. 253; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 Pac. 1013), the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

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

TURNER, C. J.

This is an action for unlawful detainer, originally commenced by defendant in error, as plaintiff, before a justice of the peace in and for Wagoner township and county, to recover of plaintiff in error, as defendant, possession of certain real estate. For answer defendant denied plaintiff to be the owner of the land, that he was entitled to possession, and the jurisdiction of the justice to try the cause. There was judg *678 ment for. plaintiff, and a like result on trial anew in the county court, to which the case was appealed. Defendant brings the case here.

The evidence discloses that defendant was in possession under a lease from the former owner which had expired and was seeking to retain possession by holding over under an alleged new lease which he set up. Assailing plaintiff’s title which was a deed from defendant’s landlord, introduced for the purpose of proving plaintiff’s right of possession, defendant sought to show that the same was void because of the alleged minority, when made, of plaintiff’s grantor; and, the issue of fact being determined against him, he now claims that the title to the land being thus involved, the justice — and, on appeal, the county court — was ousted of jurisdiction to try the cause. Such not being a proper subject of trial, the jurisdiction of neither court was affected thereby. In Vansellous v. Huene, 26 Okla. 243, 108 Pac. 1102, the situation was strikingly similar. There, as here, defendant was in possession under a -lease, and after the expiration of his term refused to deliver possession to the purchaser. The court said:

“The next objection raises the question of the sufficiency of the deed to the plaintiff, and puts in issue the title to the property. We do not deem this a proper subject for trial in the present case. ‘Forcible entry and detainer,’ or ‘forcible entry and unlawful detainer,’ is a proceeding at law and the right to possession is the sole question involved, and evidences of title are only material in so far as they tend to show right of possession, and no equities of parties can be determined. Anderson v. Ferguson, 12 Okla. 307, 71 Pac. 225. There are a great many other cases to the same effect in this jurisdiction; but the question is so well settled here and elsewhere that we do not deem it necessary to cite them.”

See, also, Powers v. Myers, 25 Okla. 165, 105 Pac. 674.

We are therefore of opinion that both courts had jurisdiction; and that, as the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial is not assigned as error, either in the petition in error or in the briefs, of plaintiff in error, and the only remaining errors assigned are those alleged to have occurred in the *679 trial of the cause, and hence we cannot consider them (Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259, 54 Pac. 467; Beall v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 7 Okla. 285, 54 Pac. 474; Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Bank of Stroud, 12 Okla. 168, 70 Pac. 205; DeVitt et al v. City of El Reno et al., 28 Okla. 315, 114 Pac. 253; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 Pac. 1013), the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 363, 119 P. 976, 29 Okla. 677, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burrus-v-funk-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack