Harjo v. Collins

1930 OK 369, 293 P. 179, 146 Okla. 131, 72 A.L.R. 1034, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 284
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 9, 1930
Docket19808
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 1930 OK 369 (Harjo v. Collins) 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
Harjo v. Collins, 1930 OK 369, 293 P. 179, 146 Okla. 131, 72 A.L.R. 1034, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 284 (Okla. 1930).

Opinion

HAGLETON, C.

Eulkab Harjo and Lucy Harjo,, husband and wife, full-blood Sem-inóle Indians, filed suit against C. P. J. Collins and others in the district court of Seminole county, on July 26', 1927, alleging that they were the sole heirs of Jacob Harjo and Louis Harjo, their full-blood sous who died in infancy; that these children were allotted certain real premises in what is now Seminole county; that they, as such heirs, were the owners of said real premises; that the defendants claimed some adverse interest or title in and to the same; that the records of the county clerk disclosed some 20 deeds and other conveyances purporting to affect the title thereof, which deeds and conveyances were placed of record in pursuance of a fraudulent scheme conjured up by Henry T. King and Tom Factor and their associates for the purpose of defrauding them, the plaintiffs, out of said land; that any and all deeds and conveyances purporting to have been executed by them were forgeries or were fraudulently obtained. They prayed for judgment establishing their titles, for possession of the property, an|d fojr a dejeree canceling of record these spurious conveyances and quieting their titles.

The defendants pleaded that they were the owners of said premises, and had been in the open, notorious, adverse, and peaceful possession thereof for more than 16 years; that their title was derived by mesne conveyances from the plaintiffs, who made, executed and delivered certain conveyances, which deeds were executed and delivered in the year 1910, for valuable considerations, which were duly paid; that said deeds made by the said plaintiffs were duly and properly approved by the county court having jurisdiction of the administration of the estates of the deceased allottees. They further plead facts charging the plaintiffs with laches as a foundation to estop them from claiming adverse title to the premises.

The plaintiffs filed a reply which was a verified general denial thereto.

A jury was waived, the 'cause was tried to the court, and judgment was entered for the defendants, quieting their title in and to said premises. The court, in entering judgment, found that the deeds were executed by the plaintiffs; that valuable . consideration had been paid therefor; that these deeds had been properly approved by the proper county court, and that no fraud inhered in the transactions.

The plaintiffs appealed the cause to this court and brief' their ease under the following propositions: (1) The plaintiffs received no consideration for the pretended sale of these lands; (2) Lucy Harjo did not sign the deeds to J. W. Bolen; there was a total failure of proof that Fulkah Harjo executed either of the deeds to J. W. Bolen; (3) the evidence is conclusive that the plaintiffs, who cannot read English, did not knowingly execute the deeds relied upon by the defendants, and these deeds have no more effect than if they were absolutely forgeries; (4) Henry T. King, the real purchaser, was the administrator of the estates of Jacob Harjo and Louis Harjo, the deceased allottees: he was guardian of the plaintiffs’ living children at the time these deeds were executed; bo was legally disqualified to buy the land in controversy; and undue influence would be impl’ed against, him and those holding under him.

It is admitted that a number of deeds ahd other conveyances purporting to convey these titles are of record in Seminole county; that the defendants’ title must stand or fall on two deeds purporting to have been executed by the plaintiffs to J. W. Bolen. The first deed was claimed to have been executed January 26, 1910. Tom Factor acted as interpreter. Henry T. King, as notary public, took the acknowledgment thereof. It was approved by Hon. T. S. Cobb, judge of the county court of Seminole county, which court had jurisdiction of the administration of the estates of the deceased allottees.

The second deed was claimed to have been executed on September 2, 1910. Henry T. King, as notary public, took the acknowledgment, Tom Factor appears to have acted as interpreter, and the same was approved by Hon. T. S. Cobb, judge of the county court, on February 11, 1911.

It is admitted that Henry T. King was the guardian of the living children of the plaintiffs in this action, and was administrator of the estates of Jacob Harjo and Louis *133 Harjo from sometime in 1907, until October 31, 1910.

Fulkah Harjo testified that he never intended to sell this land, and if he had signed any instrument purporting to convey the same, his signature was fraudulently obtained ; he relied absolutely on what he was told by Tom Factor in signing any documents which he signed; that he did make and sign-a lease to Henry T. King on this land through the offices of Tom Factor as interpreter. He testified that he scarcely knew Henry T. King, saw him hut a few times, and had no close business relations with him at any time. He admitted his signature to one of the deeds; was uncertain in his denial of other instruments, saying, “I do not know,” or “I would not say.” He admitted that he learned in 1910 that this land was claimed to have been purchased by J. W. Bolen.

Lucy Harjo testified that she scarcely knew Henry T. King; that she signed anything her husband asked her to; that she knew Tom Factor well; that she did not knowingly sign any deed to these premises.

The plaintiffs introduced the deposition of J. W. Bolen, to whom this land was claimed to have been sold, who testified that he was one of the associates in the Seminole Land Company, which company carried on a business of buying up Indian titles; that V. V. Harris, one of the associates therein, endeavored to purchase this land and obtained a deed therefor to the Seminole Land Company ; that Henry T. King, in 1910, advised him that this title was no good; the deed had not been approved; that a deal was entered into between him, the said Bolen, and the said King, whereby King would make the arrangements with the remaining associates of the Seminole Land Company, and they would perfect the title to this land and divide the profits therefrom, J. W. Bolen taking one-half thereof. King does not appear to have been otherwise associated with the Seminole Land Company or its members. He further testified that he personally took no part in the negotiation of these transactions ; that all the hegotiations and proceedings were handled, so far as he knows, by Henry T. King; that he was not called on for any money to handle the deal, and presumes that King made those arrangements; that he was. informed that one of the other associates in the Seminole Land Company had advanced the money; that he, the said Bolen, received his portion of the profits on this land after a sale thereof was had.

The plaintiffs also, without objection, introduced in evidence an affidavit made by Tom Factor on January 26, 1910, wherein Tom Factor stated that he acted as interpreter and explained to Fulkah Harjo and Lucy Harjo the deed to J. W. Bolen on that day executed; that they claimed to have theretofore received money from the sale of the land; that they claimed no further interest in the premises; that the consideration agreed upon therefor by J. W. Bolen was paid and otherwise secured to be paid in a manner satisfactory to them; and that they signed the warranty deed of their own free will and accord without any undue influence whatever, and that they fully understood the same.

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

Related

Roberts Ranch Co. v. Exxon Corp.
43 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1997)
In Re Lundvall's Estate
46 N.W.2d 535 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1951)
Tate v. Murphy
1949 OK 228 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1949)
Elsey v. Shaw
1947 OK 387 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1947)
White v. Morrow
1940 OK 91 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1940)
Connelly v. Gaffaney
1932 OK 599 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1930 OK 369, 293 P. 179, 146 Okla. 131, 72 A.L.R. 1034, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harjo-v-collins-okla-1930.