Killam v. Gritts

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Killam v. Gritts

1924 OK 407, 225 P. 357, 98 Okla. 263, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1205

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 8, 1924

Docket13066

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1924 OK 407 (Killam v. Gritts) 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

Killam v. Gritts, 1924 OK 407, 225 P. 357, 98 Okla. 263, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1205 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

LOGSDON, C.

Four errors are assigned but only one proposition is discussed in the briefs, and that is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the minority of the allottee on September 23, 1919, the date of the deed from the allottee to the defendant.

Plaintiff, having alleged the minority of the allottee at the date of the execution of the deed which she sought to have canceled, the burden rested upon her to establish such fact. Freeman v. First Nat. Bank, 44 Okla. 146, 143 Pac. 1165; Rice v. Ruble, 39 Okla. 51, 134 Pac. 49.

To sustain the burden thus resting upon her, plaintiff offered in evidence the census card of the allottee, Ethel Welch, which discloses that application for her enrollment was made July 18, 1902, and that at *264 the date of such application she was of the age of four months. In addition to the census card plaintiff offered in evidence the birth affidavit made in connection with the application for enrollment of Ethel Welch. This affidavit was made by the mother May 13, 1902, and shows that Ethel Welch was born January 20, 1902.

Defendant’s contention against the sufficiency of this evidence is thus stated on page 5 of his brief:

“Neither of the certificates covering these two pieces of evidence undertakes to say that they constitute a copy of the enrollment records of the Commissioner of the Eive Civilized Tribes pertaining to the enrollment of this allottee. The trial eourt should have held plaintiff’s testimony insufficient to establish the age of the allottee.”

No evidence was offered by the defendant upon the trial of this case, so that the evidence of the plaintiff stands uncontradicted in the record. That this evidence was competent and entirely sufficient for the purpose for which it was introduced is settled by numerous decisions of this court. Hutchinson v. Brown, 66 Okla. 250, 167 Pac. 624; Hefner v. Harmon, 60 Okla. 153, 159 Pac. 650; Hart v. West, 62 Okla. 71, 161 Pac. 534; Jackson v. Lair, 48 Okla. 269, 150 Pac. 162.

Since this is the only question presented and argued in this court, and the evidence being amply sufficient to sustain the finding and judgment of the trial court, such judgment should be in all things 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

LOGSDON, C.

Four errors are assigned but only one proposition is discussed in the briefs, and that is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the minority of the allottee on September 23, 1919, the date of the deed from the allottee to the defendant.

Plaintiff, having alleged the minority of the allottee at the date of the execution of the deed which she sought to have canceled, the burden rested upon her to establish such fact. Freeman v. First Nat. Bank, 44 Okla. 146, 143 Pac. 1165; Rice v. Ruble, 39 Okla. 51, 134 Pac. 49.

To sustain the burden thus resting upon her, plaintiff offered in evidence the census card of the allottee, Ethel Welch, which discloses that application for her enrollment was made July 18, 1902, and that at *264 the date of such application she was of the age of four months. In addition to the census card plaintiff offered in evidence the birth affidavit made in connection with the application for enrollment of Ethel Welch. This affidavit was made by the mother May 13, 1902, and shows that Ethel Welch was born January 20, 1902.

Defendant’s contention against the sufficiency of this evidence is thus stated on page 5 of his brief:

“Neither of the certificates covering these two pieces of evidence undertakes to say that they constitute a copy of the enrollment records of the Commissioner of the Eive Civilized Tribes pertaining to the enrollment of this allottee. The trial eourt should have held plaintiff’s testimony insufficient to establish the age of the allottee.”

No evidence was offered by the defendant upon the trial of this case, so that the evidence of the plaintiff stands uncontradicted in the record. That this evidence was competent and entirely sufficient for the purpose for which it was introduced is settled by numerous decisions of this court. Hutchinson v. Brown, 66 Okla. 250, 167 Pac. 624; Hefner v. Harmon, 60 Okla. 153, 159 Pac. 650; Hart v. West, 62 Okla. 71, 161 Pac. 534; Jackson v. Lair, 48 Okla. 269, 150 Pac. 162.

Since this is the only question presented and argued in this court, and the evidence being amply sufficient to sustain the finding and judgment of the trial court, such judgment should be in all things affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 407, 225 P. 357, 98 Okla. 263, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/killam-v-gritts-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack