Jackson v. Lair

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Jackson v. Lair

1915 OK 516, 160 P. 162, 48 Okla. 269, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 622

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 22, 1915

Docket3751

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1915 OK 516 (Jackson v. Lair) 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

Jackson v. Lair, 1915 OK 516, 160 P. 162, 48 Okla. 269, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 622 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

THACKER, C.

(after stating the facts as above). That the enrollment record was purely hearsay, and therefore inadmissible as evidence of Minnie Lan-drum’s age at the time she executed the deed of October 2, 1907, that being prior to the act of Congress of May 27, 1908, which did not become effective until July 27, 1908, is well established. Grayson et al. v. Durant et al., 43 Okla. 799, 144 Pac. 592.

On the other hand, it is both clear from the language of said act of May 27, 1908, and well established by the decided cases that, in respect to the age of plaintiff at the time she executed the conveyances that were made by her after July 27, 1908, when that act took effect, the said enrollment record was not only admissible, but was conclusive as to her age as shown by it. Gilbert v. Brown, 44 Okla. 194, 144 Pac. 359. But that record did not show, nor tend to show, her precise age within the year 1908. It throws no light whatever upon the date, within that year, at which she became 18, and therefore capable of conveying. This question, unsettled by the enrollment record, must necessarily be determined by indulging a legal presumption or by recourse to other evidence than the record. Section 3 of said act, which is the one to be considered here, “merely declares that all allottees who *273 appear to be minors, as therein defined, upon the enrollment records, must hereafter be conclusively presumed to be such in all transactions concerning the alienation of their allotted lands” (Scott v. Brakel et al., 43 Okla. 655, 143 Pac. 510); and it therefore does not appear from the proffered and rejected evidence (the enrollment record) that Minnie Landrum was under the disability of minority at the times in 1908 at which she executed to plaintiff the several deeds of that year. The oral evidence showing, as the trial court found, that Minnie Landrum was 18 years old at the time she executed to plaintiff the deeds of 1908, plaintiff was clearly entitled to the equitable relief given him.

This, of course, includes a denial of right to the affirmative relief prayed by the defendants; but, if plaintiff had failed to establish his right to the relief prayed, the relief asked by the defendants in behalf of the defendant Jackson would have to be denied because he took the deed under which he claims in violation of section 2036, Stat. 1890 (sec. 2260, Rev. Laws 1910), the plaintiff alone, having been in possession and Minnie Landrum out of possession of and having taken neither rents nor profits from the land for inore than one year before the deed to Jackson, and he was guilty of champerty. Huston v. Scott et al., 20 Okla. 142, 94 Pac. 512, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 721; Miller v. Fryer, 35 Okla. 145, 128 Pac. 713; Ruby v. Nunn, 37 Okla. 389, 132 Pac. 128; Phillips et al. v. Byrd, 43 Okla. 556, 143 Pac. 684.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

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

THACKER, C.

(after stating the facts as above). That the enrollment record was purely hearsay, and therefore inadmissible as evidence of Minnie Lan-drum’s age at the time she executed the deed of October 2, 1907, that being prior to the act of Congress of May 27, 1908, which did not become effective until July 27, 1908, is well established. Grayson et al. v. Durant et al., 43 Okla. 799, 144 Pac. 592.

On the other hand, it is both clear from the language of said act of May 27, 1908, and well established by the decided cases that, in respect to the age of plaintiff at the time she executed the conveyances that were made by her after July 27, 1908, when that act took effect, the said enrollment record was not only admissible, but was conclusive as to her age as shown by it. Gilbert v. Brown, 44 Okla. 194, 144 Pac. 359. But that record did not show, nor tend to show, her precise age within the year 1908. It throws no light whatever upon the date, within that year, at which she became 18, and therefore capable of conveying. This question, unsettled by the enrollment record, must necessarily be determined by indulging a legal presumption or by recourse to other evidence than the record. Section 3 of said act, which is the one to be considered here, “merely declares that all allottees who *273 appear to be minors, as therein defined, upon the enrollment records, must hereafter be conclusively presumed to be such in all transactions concerning the alienation of their allotted lands” (Scott v. Brakel et al., 43 Okla. 655, 143 Pac. 510); and it therefore does not appear from the proffered and rejected evidence (the enrollment record) that Minnie Landrum was under the disability of minority at the times in 1908 at which she executed to plaintiff the several deeds of that year. The oral evidence showing, as the trial court found, that Minnie Landrum was 18 years old at the time she executed to plaintiff the deeds of 1908, plaintiff was clearly entitled to the equitable relief given him.

This, of course, includes a denial of right to the affirmative relief prayed by the defendants; but, if plaintiff had failed to establish his right to the relief prayed, the relief asked by the defendants in behalf of the defendant Jackson would have to be denied because he took the deed under which he claims in violation of section 2036, Stat. 1890 (sec. 2260, Rev. Laws 1910), the plaintiff alone, having been in possession and Minnie Landrum out of possession of and having taken neither rents nor profits from the land for inore than one year before the deed to Jackson, and he was guilty of champerty. Huston v. Scott et al., 20 Okla. 142, 94 Pac. 512, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 721; Miller v. Fryer, 35 Okla. 145, 128 Pac. 713; Ruby v. Nunn, 37 Okla. 389, 132 Pac. 128; Phillips et al. v. Byrd, 43 Okla. 556, 143 Pac. 684.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 516, 160 P. 162, 48 Okla. 269, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-lair-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack