Davis v. Spinning

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Davis v. Spinning

1923 OK 522, 229 P. 471, 102 Okla. 202, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 38

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 24, 1923

Docket11626

StatusPublished

This text of 1923 OK 522 (Davis v. Spinning) 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

Davis v. Spinning, 1923 OK 522, 229 P. 471, 102 Okla. 202, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 38 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinions

COCHRAN, J.

This action was commenced by Baxter Davis, plaintiff in error, against R. C. Spinning, defendant in error, to cancel a deed and to quiet the title of the plaintiff in error to certain property situated in Pawnee county, Okla. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as they appeared in the trial court.

On August 27, 1918, John Robedeaux executed and delivered to the plaintiff, Baxter Davis, a warranty deed to the lands in controversy, Davis giving his check for $100, a note for $856, and assuming a mortgage of $2,044. On October 23, 1918, Robe-deaux executed a warranty deed to R. C. Spinning, who agreed to pay for the property $3,500 by taking up the debt of $1,400 which Robedeaux and his parents owed Spinning and Spinning also agreed to build a house on other property belonging to Robe- ' deaux to cost about $1,000, and agreed to pay the rest of the purchase money to Robe-deaux’s parents. Spinning paid as a cash consideration the sum of $10 for the execution of the deed. Davis brought this suit to cancel the Spinning deed, and Spinning answered that he was the owner of the property and that the deed executed by Robe-deaux to Davis was intended, as a mortgage instead of a deed. The case was tried before a jury, and the jury found that the deed from Robedeaux to Davis was not intended as a mortgage. The trial .court declined to ai>prove the verdict of the jury and held that the deed to the plaintiff was given as a mortgage and decreed the title to be in Spinning, subject to the Baker mortgage. The plaintiff contends that the judgment in this case is against the clear weight of the evidence.

We have examined the record, and it appears to us that the judgment of the trial court is clearly against the weight of the evidence, and this being an equity case, it is our duty to weigh the .evidence and determine which side has the clear weight of the evidence and decide this appeal accordingly. It appearing to us that the clear ■weight of the evidence is in favor of Bí-ter- Davis, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and cause remanded, .with directions to enter judgment canceling the deed from Robedeaux to Spinning and quieting plaintiff’s title to the lands, subject to the lien of the Baker mortgage.

*203 JOHNSON, C. J., and KENNAMER, NICHOLSON, BRANSON, HARRISON, and MASON, JJ„ concur.

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

COCHRAN, J.

This action was commenced by Baxter Davis, plaintiff in error, against R. C. Spinning, defendant in error, to cancel a deed and to quiet the title of the plaintiff in error to certain property situated in Pawnee county, Okla. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as they appeared in the trial court.

On August 27, 1918, John Robedeaux executed and delivered to the plaintiff, Baxter Davis, a warranty deed to the lands in controversy, Davis giving his check for $100, a note for $856, and assuming a mortgage of $2,044. On October 23, 1918, Robe-deaux executed a warranty deed to R. C. Spinning, who agreed to pay for the property $3,500 by taking up the debt of $1,400 which Robedeaux and his parents owed Spinning and Spinning also agreed to build a house on other property belonging to Robe- ' deaux to cost about $1,000, and agreed to pay the rest of the purchase money to Robe-deaux’s parents. Spinning paid as a cash consideration the sum of $10 for the execution of the deed. Davis brought this suit to cancel the Spinning deed, and Spinning answered that he was the owner of the property and that the deed executed by Robe-deaux to Davis was intended, as a mortgage instead of a deed. The case was tried before a jury, and the jury found that the deed from Robedeaux to Davis was not intended as a mortgage. The trial .court declined to ai>prove the verdict of the jury and held that the deed to the plaintiff was given as a mortgage and decreed the title to be in Spinning, subject to the Baker mortgage. The plaintiff contends that the judgment in this case is against the clear weight of the evidence.

We have examined the record, and it appears to us that the judgment of the trial court is clearly against the weight of the evidence, and this being an equity case, it is our duty to weigh the .evidence and determine which side has the clear weight of the evidence and decide this appeal accordingly. It appearing to us that the clear ■weight of the evidence is in favor of Bí-ter- Davis, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and cause remanded, .with directions to enter judgment canceling the deed from Robedeaux to Spinning and quieting plaintiff’s title to the lands, subject to the lien of the Baker mortgage.

*203 JOHNSON, C. J., and KENNAMER, NICHOLSON, BRANSON, HARRISON, and MASON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 522, 229 P. 471, 102 Okla. 202, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-spinning-okla-1923.