Youngblood v. Rector

259 P. 579, 126 Okla. 210
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 14, 1927
Docket17443
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 259 P. 579 (Youngblood v. Rector) 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
Youngblood v. Rector, 259 P. 579, 126 Okla. 210 (Okla. 1927).

Opinion

MASON, V. C. J.

On July 20, 1925, the plaintiff in error herein filed a petition in the county court of Caddo county to probate, as a domiciliary will, the will of her deceased husband, J. M. Youngblood. She did not have the will, but gave notice to produce.

The defendants in error herein, the children of J. M. Youngblood by a former marriage, contested the probate of the will in Caddo county as a domiciliary will, contending that J. M. Youngblood was a resident of the state of Missouri at the time of his death.

The county court, upon hearing, found the facts to be such as would substantially meet all requirements of the statutes, and ordered the will admitted to probate, but the district court, on appeal, reversed the judgment of the county court and refused to admit said will to probate. The proponent of said will has duly perfected her appeal to this court.

It is conceded by both parties that the sole issue involved herein is the domicile of J. M. Youngblood at the time of his death. The county court found that his domicile was in Oklahoma, while the district court held it was in Missouri. If his domicile was, in Missouri, these proceedings must fail, and, the judgment of the district court refusing, to- admit the will to probate must be affirmed, but if his legal domicile was in Cad-, do county, Okla., at the time of his death, the judgment of the district court must be reversed and that of the county court should; stand.

It appears that the controversy is brought about by reason of the fact that under the, terms of the will the proponent is given a one-fifth interest in said estate during her natural life only, and if the testator’s domicile was in Missouri at the time of his death, the proponent’s interest in the estate is fixed by the will, but if the legal domicile of the deceased at the time of his death was in Oklahoma, the proponent, under the laws of this state, would be entitled to one-third of said estate, regardless of the terms of the, will.

Some contention is made by defendants in error that, if there is any competent evidence in the record supporting the judgment of the district court, it must be affirmed by/ this court. This, however, is not the correct! rule. This is a special proceeding in the! nature of an equitable action, and this court will weigh the evidence, but will not reversa) the judgment of the trial court, unless said judgment is clearly against the weight of evidence. Hixon v. Hubbell, 4 Okla. 224, 44 Pac. 222; Holt v. Murphy, 15 Okla. 12, 79 Pac. 265; Eager v. Seeds, 21 Okla. 524, 96 Pac. 646; Marrs v. Barnes, 55 Okla. 590, 155 Pac. 560; In re Wahkon-tah-he-um-pah’s, Estate, 109 Okla. 126, 234 Pac. 210.

This rule, however, is based upon the theory that the trial court sees the witnesses and is in better position to weigh the evidence than is the appellate court, but in the¡ instant case it appears that practically all of the evidence in the district court was either by deposition or other record evidence, and, therefore, the reason for the rule is absent. In this connection it might be well to call attention to the fact that it appears that practically all of the witnesses who did not appear in person in the district court did so appear in the county court.

The facts in the case, as estab’ished by the evidence, are substantially as follows: ,

James M. Youngblood was born in Arkansas about 1856, the youngest of five brothers. During- the Civil War the family moved to Missouri and located at Republic, a small town near Springfield. Shortly after moving to Missouri, the father and mother died,leaving the five brothers as the survivors of the family, James M. Youngblood being about eight years of age and the oldest brother being about 21 years of age at that time. The brothers continued to live together until the oldest brother married, after which all the *212 brothers lived with him until they were grown. In 1900, James M. Youngblood was engaged in the general mercantile business at Republic and his family consisted of his wife and four children, the defendants in error herein. In 1901, he and his fami.y came to Oklahoma to the opening of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indian country, and located at Anadarko. Some time thereafter, James M. Youngblood and his wife separated and she returned to Missouri, where she died some years later.

In 1905, James M. Youngblood and the plaintiff in error, Emma Youngblood, were married at Anadarko. It appears that the deceased and his wife, the proponent of the will, have, since their marriage in 1905, toiled and labored together at Anadarko, enduring all the hardships and inconveniences ordinarily encountered in the development of a new country, and by their incessant toil, economy, and good management had accumulated property of the approximate value of $125,000 at the time of his death. In 1914, the deceased purchased a farm near Ana-darko and, after erecting a comfortable house, he and his wife moved upon the farm, and in addition to conducting other business in which they were interested, they farmed this place until about five years prior to his death, when they rented the farm, but always reserved part of the house for theirj own occupancy and at all times have kept the principal part of their household goods at this place.

A short time after their marriage, Mr. Youngblood disposed of his mercantile business, and after paying the outstanding indebtedness very little remained. I-Ie and his wife then opened a music store with a very small stock — mostly second-hand instruments. They had light housekeeping rooms equipped in the same building which they occupied until the farm near Anadarko was purchased and thereafter continued to occupy these rooms when the weather was too disagreeable to make the trip to the farm.

In 1910, Mr. Youngblood purchased business property in Anadarko and about the' same time purchased a one-half interest in the local agency for the sale of Ford cars. This automobile business grew rapidly and proved to be very profitable. I-Ie was en-' gaged also in other business at Anadarko, including the banking business, and owned several farms in that vicinity. 1-Ie also was a member of local fraternal organizations and was registered there as a voter.

Since 1915, the deceased and his wife, on account of the hot weather in Oklahoma, have spent their summers in Springfield, Mo. In 1919, 'the deceased bought a half interest in a rooming house in Springfield, and thereafter occupied a part of it during these visits, until after the death ox his brother, in the spring of 1923, who owned the other -portion, when he disposed of his interest. Soon thereafter, he imrchased 40 acres of land near Springfield, paying therefor $8,000 cash, and assuming a mortgage of approximately $14,000. There was 'a tenant on this property when it was purchased and Youngblood and his wife occupied a portion of the house for a few weeks, after which they returned to Anadarko for the winter. In the latter part of February, 1924, another brother of the deceased, who lived near the Missouri property, took seriously ill and, in response to a wire, Mr. and Mrs. Youngblood went to Missouri the latter part of February, 1924, and stayed at the brother's house until some time in April, when he died. After the brother’s death, Mr.

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

Related

Estate of Miller v. Miller
1988 OK CIV APP 19 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1988)
Mitchell v. Cloyes
1980 OK 184 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1980)
Charisse v. Eldred
477 S.W.2d 480 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1972)
Wilson v. Upton
1962 OK 179 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1962)
Bixby v. Bixby
1961 OK 100 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1961)
Jones v. Burkett
1959 OK 221 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1959)
Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. West
260 S.W.2d 866 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1953)
In Re Paull's Estate
1950 OK 8 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1950)
Caesar v. Burgess
103 F.2d 503 (Tenth Circuit, 1939)
Franklin v. Beard
1935 OK 305 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
In Re Davis' Estate
1935 OK 242 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Peace v. Peace
1931 OK 293 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
In Re Dillard's Estate
1931 OK 132 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Richards v. Huff
1930 OK 547 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Brooks v. Creger
135 Okla. 77 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
In Re Creger's Estate
1929 OK 42 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 P. 579, 126 Okla. 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youngblood-v-rector-okla-1927.