Cook v. Melton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Cook v. Melton

1918 OK 633, 176 P. 205, 73 Okla. 318, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 141

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 19, 1918

Docket9294

StatusPublished

This text of 1918 OK 633 (Cook v. Melton) 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

Cook v. Melton, 1918 OK 633, 176 P. 205, 73 Okla. 318, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 141 (Okla. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

POPE, C.

On October 5, 1915, .the plaintiff below, Adrian Melton, acquired title to a certain tract of land located in Grady county at a guardian’s sale. The land was then in the actual possession and occupancy of the defendant, O. E. Cook, who was holding' under a yearly lease from Geo. C. Howard, who in turn was holding by virtue of a five-year lease given by the al-lotte of the land, a full-blood Choctaw Indian. Under his lease agreement Cook paid $50 in advance and gave his note for $100 payable October 1, 1915. making a total of $150, representing the full agreed rent for the year 1915. This note was past due when Melton purchased the land, but unpaid. Melton brought suit in the justice court for the rental value of the land for the year 1915 alleged to be $150. Judgment was rendered against him. He appealed to the district court, recovering a judgment for $100, and Cook brings error to this court.

Regardless of the nature of Cook’s occupancy of the land or of the nature of .his rights therein, it is entirely clear that Melton is not entitled to recover for the use and occupancy of land for the entire year of 1915. He did not purchase the land until October 5, 1915. and hence, if Cook, was liable to any one for the use and occupation of the premises, he certainly was not liable to Melton for the time prior to Ociober 5, 1915. Bigham v. Alexander, 54 Okla. 51, 153 Pac. 644. If Cook’s lease was void, Melton could at least only recover for usé and occupation of same from and after the date he was entitled to the possesion of said premises, to wit, 5th day of October. 1915, a recovery which he does not seek in this action.

If the view be taken that Cook’s lease is valid, then it is equally clear that Melton is not entitled to recovery.

The rent for the entire year had matured before Melton purchased the land, and it is well settled that accrued rents do not pass to the purchaser of the demised premises. Coffey v. Hunt, 75 Ala. 236; Damren v. American Light & Power Co., 91 Me. 334, 40 Atl. 63; Burden v. Thayer, 44 Mass. (3 Metc.) 76, 37 Am. Dec. 117; Williams v. Williams, 118 Mich. 477, 76 N. W. 1039.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and cause remanded.

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

POPE, C.

On October 5, 1915, .the plaintiff below, Adrian Melton, acquired title to a certain tract of land located in Grady county at a guardian’s sale. The land was then in the actual possession and occupancy of the defendant, O. E. Cook, who was holding' under a yearly lease from Geo. C. Howard, who in turn was holding by virtue of a five-year lease given by the al-lotte of the land, a full-blood Choctaw Indian. Under his lease agreement Cook paid $50 in advance and gave his note for $100 payable October 1, 1915. making a total of $150, representing the full agreed rent for the year 1915. This note was past due when Melton purchased the land, but unpaid. Melton brought suit in the justice court for the rental value of the land for the year 1915 alleged to be $150. Judgment was rendered against him. He appealed to the district court, recovering a judgment for $100, and Cook brings error to this court.

Regardless of the nature of Cook’s occupancy of the land or of the nature of .his rights therein, it is entirely clear that Melton is not entitled to recover for the use and occupancy of land for the entire year of 1915. He did not purchase the land until October 5, 1915. and hence, if Cook, was liable to any one for the use and occupation of the premises, he certainly was not liable to Melton for the time prior to Ociober 5, 1915. Bigham v. Alexander, 54 Okla. 51, 153 Pac. 644. If Cook’s lease was void, Melton could at least only recover for usé and occupation of same from and after the date he was entitled to the possesion of said premises, to wit, 5th day of October. 1915, a recovery which he does not seek in this action.

If the view be taken that Cook’s lease is valid, then it is equally clear that Melton is not entitled to recovery.

The rent for the entire year had matured before Melton purchased the land, and it is well settled that accrued rents do not pass to the purchaser of the demised premises. Coffey v. Hunt, 75 Ala. 236; Damren v. American Light & Power Co., 91 Me. 334, 40 Atl. 63; Burden v. Thayer, 44 Mass. (3 Metc.) 76, 37 Am. Dec. 117; Williams v. Williams, 118 Mich. 477, 76 N. W. 1039.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and cause remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK 633, 176 P. 205, 73 Okla. 318, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-melton-okla-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack