McGrath v. Majors

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McGrath v. Majors

1937 OK 209, 66 P.2d 915, 179 Okla. 500, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 321

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 30, 1937

DocketNo. 24847.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1937 OK 209 (McGrath v. Majors) 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

McGrath v. Majors, 1937 OK 209, 66 P.2d 915, 179 Okla. 500, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 321 (Okla. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

HURST, J.

Martha J. Majors commenced this action on March 4, 1930, to quiet her title to two lots in Capitol Hill addition to Oklahoma City. The defendant McGrath filed an aswer claiming title under a resale tax deed executed to him' as grantee June 3,6, 1924, and duly recorded December 1, 1925, and pleaded the one-year statute of limitations under section 12756, O. S. 1931. The plaintiff filed a reply in which she alleged that said tax deed was void on its face and was void for seven other reasons. Evidence was introduced by both parties, at the close of which the court found the issues in favor of the plaintiff, and entered *501 judgment quieting her title as against all claims of the defendant, and from that judgment this appeal was taken.

1. The defendant first argues that the petition does not st'ate a cauge of action. The petition alleges that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of said lots; that the defendant claims some right, title, or interest in the same, but that such claim is without merit and operates as a cloud upon her title; that defendant should be required to set up his claim, and that plaintiff’s title should be quieted as against the same. These allegations state a good cause of action under section 591, O. S. 1931. Ziska v. Avey, 36 Okla. 405, 122 P. 722; Turner v. McNeill, 138 Okla. 238, 247 P. 39; McGrath v. Durham, 151 Okla. 55, 1 P. (2d) 718.

2. The defendant further contends that the reply constitutes a departure from the petition, and for that reason his demurrer to the reply should have been sustained. There is no inconsistency between the petition and the reply. The petition alleges that the claim of the defendant is without merit, and the reply alleges that the tax deed is void. The reply does not constitute a departure from the petition. 49 C. J. 342 and 351; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. McDonald, 123 Okla. 289, 253 P. 287.

3. The defendant’s tax deed is governed by chapter 158 of the 3923 Session Laws, ’as amended (sections 12753-12756, O. S. 3931). It contains no recital that the lots are vacant or that they sold for an amount equal to or greater than the amount of taxes, interest, penalty, and costs due on each lot. The failure to make this recital renders the deed void on its face. Mahoney v. Weitelman, 174 Okla. 591. 50 P. (2d) 3094; Price v. Mahoney, 175 Okla. 355, 53 P. (2d) 257; Mahoney v. Estep, 171 Okla. 101, 38 P. (2d) 537.

4. The defendant’s tax deed being void on its face, the plaintiff’s cause of action to quiet her title 'as against the same is not barred by the statute of limitations. Norton v. Barefoot, 168 Okla. 112, 32 P. (2d) 28; Mahoney v. Estep, supra ; Emery v. Stansbury, 173 Okla. 478, 49 P. (2d) 155. Both parties claim possession of the property and introduced evidence to support their claim. iBy its general finding, the court determined that plaintiff is in possession, and we think the evidence supports this finding. However, that question is immaterial either on the question as to the validity of the deed or the statute of limitations.

Proper tender of the taxes, interest, penalty, and costs due was made in the pleadings under section 12761, O. S. 1931. This disposes of all the contentions of the defendant. It is unnecessary to refer to the other reasons why the plaintiff claims said deed is void. Affirmed.

BAYLESS, V. C. J., and RILEY, WELCH, and GIBSON, J.T., concur. CORN, J., dissents. OSBORN, O. ,T., and BUSBY and PHELPS, J.T., absent.

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

HURST, J.

Martha J. Majors commenced this action on March 4, 1930, to quiet her title to two lots in Capitol Hill addition to Oklahoma City. The defendant McGrath filed an aswer claiming title under a resale tax deed executed to him' as grantee June 3,6, 1924, and duly recorded December 1, 1925, and pleaded the one-year statute of limitations under section 12756, O. S. 1931. The plaintiff filed a reply in which she alleged that said tax deed was void on its face and was void for seven other reasons. Evidence was introduced by both parties, at the close of which the court found the issues in favor of the plaintiff, and entered *501 judgment quieting her title as against all claims of the defendant, and from that judgment this appeal was taken.

1. The defendant first argues that the petition does not st'ate a cauge of action. The petition alleges that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of said lots; that the defendant claims some right, title, or interest in the same, but that such claim is without merit and operates as a cloud upon her title; that defendant should be required to set up his claim, and that plaintiff’s title should be quieted as against the same. These allegations state a good cause of action under section 591, O. S. 1931. Ziska v. Avey, 36 Okla. 405, 122 P. 722; Turner v. McNeill, 138 Okla. 238, 247 P. 39; McGrath v. Durham, 151 Okla. 55, 1 P. (2d) 718.

2. The defendant further contends that the reply constitutes a departure from the petition, and for that reason his demurrer to the reply should have been sustained. There is no inconsistency between the petition and the reply. The petition alleges that the claim of the defendant is without merit, and the reply alleges that the tax deed is void. The reply does not constitute a departure from the petition. 49 C. J. 342 and 351; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. McDonald, 123 Okla. 289, 253 P. 287.

3. The defendant’s tax deed is governed by chapter 158 of the 3923 Session Laws, ’as amended (sections 12753-12756, O. S. 3931). It contains no recital that the lots are vacant or that they sold for an amount equal to or greater than the amount of taxes, interest, penalty, and costs due on each lot. The failure to make this recital renders the deed void on its face. Mahoney v. Weitelman, 174 Okla. 591. 50 P. (2d) 3094; Price v. Mahoney, 175 Okla. 355, 53 P. (2d) 257; Mahoney v. Estep, 171 Okla. 101, 38 P. (2d) 537.

4. The defendant’s tax deed being void on its face, the plaintiff’s cause of action to quiet her title 'as against the same is not barred by the statute of limitations. Norton v. Barefoot, 168 Okla. 112, 32 P. (2d) 28; Mahoney v. Estep, supra ; Emery v. Stansbury, 173 Okla. 478, 49 P. (2d) 155. Both parties claim possession of the property and introduced evidence to support their claim. iBy its general finding, the court determined that plaintiff is in possession, and we think the evidence supports this finding. However, that question is immaterial either on the question as to the validity of the deed or the statute of limitations.

Proper tender of the taxes, interest, penalty, and costs due was made in the pleadings under section 12761, O. S. 1931. This disposes of all the contentions of the defendant. It is unnecessary to refer to the other reasons why the plaintiff claims said deed is void. Affirmed.

BAYLESS, V. C. J., and RILEY, WELCH, and GIBSON, J.T., concur. CORN, J., dissents. OSBORN, O. ,T., and BUSBY and PHELPS, J.T., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1937 OK 209, 66 P.2d 915, 179 Okla. 500, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgrath-v-majors-okla-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack