Fixico v. Fixico

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Fixico v. Fixico

1940 OK 118, 100 P.2d 260, 186 Okla. 656, 1940 Okla. LEXIS 82

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 12, 1940

DocketNo. 29428.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1940 OK 118 (Fixico v. Fixico) 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

Fixico v. Fixico, 1940 OK 118, 100 P.2d 260, 186 Okla. 656, 1940 Okla. LEXIS 82 (Okla. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

RILEY, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff’s petition and dismissing the action. Appellant contends the action sounds in tort, but it approaches breach of contract.

Defendant is an incompetent Indian. It is alleged that she induced plaintiff to marry her minor son under promise of provision of a home and sustenance, and that these were furnished with acquiescence of defendant’s guardian and the county court. Defendant’s son died in 1935; three years thereafter it is alleged defendant rendered plaintiff’s condition intolerable by “breaking said contract,” making efforts to obtain possession of the home of plaintiff, and sought to oust plaintiff and her two children from the home, the use of which defendant had furnished, and as a means to this end “had the water, lights, and gas cut off.”

Section 9404, O. S. 1931, sec. 24, title 15, Okla. Stats. Anno., inhibits a contract, designation of a power, and waiver of a right by an incompetent person. Therefore, any contemplated contract attempted to be made as herein alleged vested in plaintiff nothing, nor did acquiescence of guardian or court in providing living expense or home for plaintiff bind the incompetent defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

OSBORN, HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur.

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

RILEY, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff’s petition and dismissing the action. Appellant contends the action sounds in tort, but it approaches breach of contract.

Defendant is an incompetent Indian. It is alleged that she induced plaintiff to marry her minor son under promise of provision of a home and sustenance, and that these were furnished with acquiescence of defendant’s guardian and the county court. Defendant’s son died in 1935; three years thereafter it is alleged defendant rendered plaintiff’s condition intolerable by “breaking said contract,” making efforts to obtain possession of the home of plaintiff, and sought to oust plaintiff and her two children from the home, the use of which defendant had furnished, and as a means to this end “had the water, lights, and gas cut off.”

Section 9404, O. S. 1931, sec. 24, title 15, Okla. Stats. Anno., inhibits a contract, designation of a power, and waiver of a right by an incompetent person. Therefore, any contemplated contract attempted to be made as herein alleged vested in plaintiff nothing, nor did acquiescence of guardian or court in providing living expense or home for plaintiff bind the incompetent defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

OSBORN, HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1940 OK 118, 100 P.2d 260, 186 Okla. 656, 1940 Okla. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fixico-v-fixico-okla-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack