Moore v. Moore

1934 OK 103, 29 P.2d 961, 167 Okla. 365, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 519
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 20, 1934
Docket22674
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1934 OK 103 (Moore v. Moore) 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
Moore v. Moore, 1934 OK 103, 29 P.2d 961, 167 Okla. 365, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 519 (Okla. 1934).

Opinion

ANDREWS, J.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county, Okla., in favor of the plaintiff in the action.

The judgment was that the defendants convey to the plaintiff a one-sixteenth interest in the land involved in the action and one-sixteenth of the proceeds of the sale of an oil and gas lease thereon, less the amount paid by the defendants to the plaintiff for the land with interest thereon and less one-sixteenth of the reasonable expense incurred in leasing the land for oil and gas.

On appeal it is contended that the judgment is contrary to the law and contrary to the evidence.

The evidence is sufficient to show the existence of such a confidential relationship between the parties as to require a full disclosure of the facts, and such a failuré of the defendants to disclose the facts to the plaintiff as to warrant the judgment rendered. Since the judgment is not against the clear weight of the evidence, it will not be disturbed by this court. Larkin v. Talley, 129 Okla. 58, 263 P. 145.

There was no such delay in bringing the action as to amount to “laches.” Kirkpatrick v. Baker et al., 135 Okla. 142, 276 P. 193. The judgment is not contrary to the law which authorizes a declaration of a trust in land obtained under the circumstances shown by the record in this case. McDaniel v. Schroeder, 128 Okla. 91, 261 P. 224.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RILEY, O. J., CULLISO'N, V. O. J., and OSBORN and BUSBY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bowen v. Hamilton
1964 OK 120 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1964)
Mahan v. Dunkleman
1951 OK 213 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1951)
Oklahoma City Federal Savings & L. Ass'n v. Swatek
1942 OK 273 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1942)
Blackstock Oil Co. v. Caston
87 P.2d 1087 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Hayes v. Thormsbrough
1937 OK 408 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Dardenne v. Daniels
1936 OK 161 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
Higgins v. Classen
1936 OK 85 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
McCoy v. Braden Co.
46 P.2d 960 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Hubbard v. Stotts
1935 OK 74 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Wilkerson v. Wilkerson
1934 OK 566 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1934 OK 103, 29 P.2d 961, 167 Okla. 365, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-moore-okla-1934.