*1 city may years cannot ments made modem be over a term lots in a that residence already reached, being until definite connections total is sold without water be price here, selling that installed, fixed the seller. If the agreement or an as - n City pay, fails to the seller can recover they will installed. the balance in an to the due action similar the above unnecessary to discuss I find it one here. In- Selected questions 'applicable to the Corp. was not For foregoing which reasons I Addition dissent. vestments covering agreement written covered to agreement relative
Lee Addition. appears to lines
payment for the water to Lee applicable that been similar to
have I believe that It follows that
Addition. same reasons also for the void
agreement Addition is to agreement as Lee
that the
void. plaintiff insists while the
I note that these water all times owned it has at COX, Virginia Sharp, Sharp, Kenneth personal property, they are and that lines Phillips II, John Allen and John R. Hick rendered appears they have never yet it man, Jr., Error, Plaintiffs in another cir- but for taxation. them addi- after the indicating that cumstance SARKEYS, S. J. Defendant in Error. request own at their were annexed tions 37121. No. made a con- they had they considered Supreme Court of Oklahoma. City with the contract ditional sales Nov. 1956. Lawton. Rehearing Denied Dec. it is this action bound plaintiff filed When lines were water known that the have re- not be could ground and under it, return sheriff
turned Replevin. the Writ of
showed called to the been deci- has
My attention Federal Cir- Court Tenth
sion of the in- similar to the one here
cuit, a case court adverse decided
volved was by me. This Court is held the view construing the laws decision
bound respect for State, due and with
court, I decision. concur cannot ruling majority. my opinion the
In permitting effect of have the
opinion will nullify the virtually constitutional cities operate They can mentioned.
inhibitions proprietary ca- in a public utilities
their of indebted- amount contract
pacity and the vote of they without desire
ness agree- lease by entering
taxpayers City pay a definite amount for the
ment funds collected equipment from buying the City from those services
by the equipment. pay- Such by such
furnished *3 Ada, Rainey, W. M. Wadlington,
King & Atoka, Phillips, Correll, Allen I. O. John Durant, plaintiffs in II, error. McArthur, Orton, Ada, Hobert L. G. C. in error. for defendant PER CURIAM. instituted in the was District
This action 7, 1953, County August Atoka on Court of error, Sarkeys, against defendant in by S. J. Cox, Sharp, Virginia Sharp, Kenneth II, Phillips, R. Hick- Allen John John error, man, plaintiffs others, Jr., Ej/á of Section quiet title to the Town- East, North, Range ship 1 Atoka County, ejectment certain de- possession. then case was fendants which returned its verdict in tried to from the plaintiff and court’s favor thereon the rendered plaintiffs perfect- in error appearing here parties appeal. Hereafter the ed this will plaintiff’s they appeared property title to said under the referred to as county perfected trial deed under 12 court. O.S. the former whether record plaintiff’s The substance of amended Mary Blaine, title property, owner of the B. petition he was to the effect that was the possession was in property at said simple the fee title and to the owner of date of the quitclaim execution of her deed herein; acquired that he land involved his defendant, Eddie Cox. county of a deed title thereto virtue dated 4, 1941, and recorded in the office August apparent stipulation It is from the county county clerk said Au- parties herein that the resale tax 5, 1941; county that said deed gust *4 upon plaintiff deed which bases his claim of upon resale tax deed based a from the county title under his deed was void for county county treasurer to the board of the reason that the land was advertised for 13, May 1941, commissioners under date of taxes, sale for greater pen amount of 17, pleaded He further recorded June alties, delinquent interest and costs due and by prescription upon title based 12 O.S. on the publica land at the time of the first 93, alleged 1951 that the and defendants § tion by of the notice re-sale including of claiming property by were title to said quarter the last delinquent. of taxes not then quit-claim deed, placed virtue aof of record question is so well settled in this court 7, 1950, April Mary from one B. Blaine to that the citation of authorities is unneces defendant, Cox, the Eddie which deed was sary. plaintiff Therefore recover, must if champertous by and void reason of 21 O. S. all, upon at alleged possession his adverse 548; notwithstanding 1951 that such void § property. of the defendant, Cox, the Eddie during deed The evidence plaintiff, discloses that the temporary plaintiff absence of the entered Sarkeys, immediately upon S. securing a J. possession part of a of said land and county deed property 4, to said August since has maintained horses a few there- 1941, through tenant, his Gaylor, Tom took upon. prayed quieted He that his title be possession land; of the Gaylor that re- against required defendants and they be possession, mained in pasturing the land possession part to deliver immediate to that cutting and timber making railroad ties said land held of them. therefrom, during years the 1942; 1941 and generally spe- The defendants denied and plaintiff placed that the land in the hands cifically allegations plaintiff’s peti- of Judge Ralls Coalgate of who leased tion; specifically plaintiff denied that had plaintiff same for to one Scivally Robert possession in ever been of said land or was pasture purposes years for the 1943 and possession in same at the date the defend- plaintiff thereafter, through ant, Cox, acquired Eddie title thereto from Judge Ralls attempted and others to lease Blaine, Mary alleged B. and that defendants land; that in company 1948 in of his possession in were of all of said land and agent, Huffman, Lawrence plaintiff possession in such long had been for a time discovered some men cutting post timber prior action; the commencement of this land; from the that he took them to Coal- Mary. possession Blaine B. was in gate they paid posts; him for the at the time the land execution her plaintiff year 1950 sold the quitclaim Cox; deed to Eddie rights timber property said 'to one H. M. plaintiff specifically denied that had Bonds, posts who cut therefrom over a title to the land acquired prescrip- months, period of 18 working day or- Mary B. conveyed at the time Blaine tion two at a time at indefinite intervals. The defendant, Eddie Cox. the same evidence further discloses that the prop- Although erty herein involved is argue rough hilly propositions land, grounds larger enclosed in a sixteen rever- tract of some appeal sal, of the acres, the crux is: only Whether 3000 pasture fit for
983 depend largely upon so must ‘the situa- although being purposes; timber large parties, tion of the the size and extent parties pastured the enclosed several land, purpose part and the for which was a but this land pasture of which ” adapted.’ it is property pastured who each of those tenants, leases held recognized the Okl., McCrory, In Tucker v. 266 no Scivally; at time Gaylor paragraph syllabus, P.2d third Bond, timber to cut the right M. of H. held: we except questioned from the land occupancy “Personal a neces- defendant, Cox, part of the latter sary possession required element of the crossing Bond year objected to perfect prescriptive title and is not land lay north land to the which his contemplated periods of lim- crossed which had involved and prescribed by itation O.S. The evidence particular get to this land. 93.” former record discloses that further Francis, In Anderson 177 Okl. Blaine, territory owner, left Mary B. 619, 620, paragraph 57 P.2d third California; that she lived in 1927 for *5 syllabus, we held: date;. in that she died state since “* * * California, Orlando, August in payment The of is taxes date con- to the she year the 1928 circumstance, from controlling a is not but it defendant, Eddie the veyed the land to of means a of whereby one the claim profits rents Cox, not taken or she had asserted, ownership is and a failure to further The evidence disclosed ownership therefrom. pay weakens of taxes a claim n paid has the taxes on said plaintiff by possession.” adverse years 1941 since each property for Kelley, supra, para in Also Cox v. paid year which except 1952 was for the syllabus, 3 is as of follows: graph the defendant, Eddie Cox. by tlie property by a grantor “A real deed to Okl., Kelley, In of Cox v. the case possession of who has not out been 1062, 1061, paragraph second of P.2d 295 year preceding possession for a next syllabus, said: we the conveyance, has of or not within date profits, year rents ‘possession’ taken or those of a constitutes “What claims, is question he void as mixed of law under whom is a land any person persons fact; possession’ in ad- consisting against . or ‘actual possession.” of acts of dominion exercise verse the of it, making ordinary the use over foregoing authorities Under ordinary profits taking the it and of the evidence adduced trial of the capable yielding present in its of is it case, only we can hold that the acts instant state.” an plaintiff were sufficient to indicate in of Eichhoff, 64, 187 Okl. McGrath v. 100 In public manner open, and visible that he had 880, 886, this court' discussing P.2d land, over the under a exclusive control possession, said: adverse possession, such exclusive right claim “ * * * possession not had such control attempt The law does and that he quitclaim acts deed under of dominion the date which at list all claim possession, now title to the such so defendants which may constitute possession, since the former premises; adverse also record title constitutes what Blaine, owner, posses B. was not in Mary of what question constitutes like depends upon land at date of said she executed often sion negligence, defendant, particular, case, quitclaim deed to the such circumstances Cox, by possession in such and had not been measured of rea- year preceding next the date of men. It has been such said that sonable conveyance, year given in a nor had not within a determination case taken such profits, quitclaim rents and such deed was Defendants in their thir- next contend proposition void in of 21 violation O.S.1951 teenth that the court erred reprimanding presence counsel in the However, in their brief jury. reprimand complained (ap- The giving argue error committed pears follows; at page C.M.) jury its the refusal instructions to the (Omitting objection plaintiff’s counsel): requested to give certain instructions “By the Court: I am not Sustained. propositions defendants.' eleven The first going question- to tolerate that sort of argued instruc by defendants relate such any ing longer.” In with these contentions tions. connection ample evi we that there was must conclude record discloses that the trial court jury, dence the verdict of the had several objections to warrant times sustained testimony offered; was and such verdict under the evidence which being correct, fact, only which and in one such testimony prove did tend dis- not or true, being prove justified. would have been issue pleadings. raised necessary it will be us to examine or We not do conclude that such statement given, discuss or those re reprimand the instructions the court was a of defendant’s fused, for, right wrong, counsel, ver they or nor do we think the could right. all Such dict under the evidence so have construed it and defendants become court in prejudiced the statement Shawnee thereby. Potts, 24 Okl. Nat. Bank v. Wootten & For their proposition, fourteenth defend- held: P. wherein this court ants contend court erred in over- *6 a verdict and are “Where ruling their challenge for juror cause to a evidence, and another authorized the by them, by made where such on juror voir unwarranted, the same will would dire examination admitted he a was appeal on of not on account be reversed plaintiff. tenant of the instruc- alleged errors exist in the to While is it true that defendants chal- given.” tions lenged juror said for cause and was over- Empire & Fuel Co. v. Wain also Gas See by ruled the thereby court and it became scott, 141; 66, 216 P. Citizens Bank 91 Okl. necessary for the defendants peremptor- to Beeson, 293, 104 Okl. 231 of Millertown v. ily challenge juror said who was thereupon Anson, 23, 844; 128 Dean v. Okl. 261 P. part excused and did not take of trial 174; Pearson, City Tulsa Okl. 296 P. of v. case, the is nothing there in the record from 788; Larkins-Warr Trust Watch P.2d v. appears which it that any juror other objec- Co., 12, 174 P.2d orn Petroleum 198 Okl. tionable to the permitted defendants was 589. panel to remain on the by trial reason of having had to exercise such proposition Under their twelfth peremptory challenge in excusing ob- said urge error of the court .defendants refus jectionable juror, nor is by it shown the competent ing ruling out and evidence of record that defendants exhausted all their testimony fered them. was in re peremptory challenges; nor is it shown that ownership, possession the lation to fenc they desired an additional peremptory chal- ing on certain other tracts land in the lenge. area, was not reference to the land same herein, properly and was involved excluded. is a It rule of almost universal evidence that has no application exclusion bear on part The error the prove does not tend to or ing overruling dis court a challenge to an ob any issue raised the pleadings jectionable juror prove material, is is not if such See, Keahey Craig, juror v. did not not error. Okl. serve as such on the trial 162, Drumm-Flato legal rights 96 P.2d the case and Commis the object Edmission, 344, party 17 Okl. ing prejudiced v. were sion Co. P. thereby. Therefore in view the fact that the ob- jury peremp- ate the intention of the where case was jectionable in this juror jur- a there no certain unmistakable not serve as torily and did challenged data can determine case, which the and further court inor the trial of the that intention.” that the defend- not show record does peremptory challenges, their ants exhausted We must note that the verdict here ob- challenge other right to or demanded the returned into as court described land right denied jectionable and such jurors 19, when the West half of Section land them, they were we cannot consider up by pleadings involved and re made prejudiced of the trial court action by the lated to the of Section 19. The East half challenge cause. overruling their reporter prepared by verdict was the court 49, 158 Chapman, Carney See 60 Okl. involved clerical error misdescrib- a cited. P. and cases therein ing was The error discovered land. in their fifteenth next contend Defendants within few the verdict was minutes after proposition erred in sustain- .that the court jury into discharged. returned and the court plaintiff’s ing after the verdict motion plaintiff immediately made motion to (cid:127) returned, verdict correct correct the which motion sus error description involved. of the land tained. In view of the entire record the could Trial, 515, p. C.J.S., In 89 they not have any- understood had or correction relating amendment thing except to do with land that as court, following jury’s verdict up by made the issues and the evidence. rule found: nothing indicating There was therein power “Generally, has the involved, West half .of 19 was Section manifestly put irregular or defective therefore, we it was must their cqnsider as to make it verdict in such form plaintiff clear intention to hold for the jury, the intention conform to Thus, to the East of Section 19. half we effect, findings carry their competent for that it was conclude trial can be ascertained intention judge meaning determine the ver- *7 certainty.” with dict from the record and to correct ver- rule the commenting says: In on this author accordingly. dict power has no the court “While In view our conclusions hereinbefore look the evidence and revise or reached we unnecessary deem it to further as to a amend the verdict finding of questions consider other raised. fact, any manner to or invade the province jury by substituting Finding or no errors which affect sub- conclusion or adding rights verdict stantial of the defendants and con- to a substantial or material cluding that the verdict of the and matter, are numerous there cases to the of the trial court judgment there- rendered power has the supported by effect that the court evidence on is and clearly put manifestly irregular or defective just, affirmed. form as make it con-
verdict such jury, intention of the form to the and WILLIAMS, J., JOHNSON, V. J., C. C. carry effect, findings into their CORN, HALLEY, and and JACKSON the intention can ascertained with CARLILE, JJ., concur. certainty, jurors' from statements themselves, judge, the notes of the trial WELCH, J., concurs in result. verdict, or given data other satisfactory appear- acknowledges The Court clear evidence aid Supreme Court ing prep- or the Commissioners in the record minutes of trial; opinion. properly aration After a but court cannot tentative opinion modify reform verdict written Commissioner to-effectu- Reed or Crawford approved Commissioners Nease, assigned to a the cause Jus- report Thereafter, upon of this Court. tice conference, fore- consideration adopted by Court. opinion was
going BUTTS, Petitioner,
Francis COMPANY, In- Tri-State
ROSE DRILLING Company Indus- the State surance Commission, Respondents. trial Death Earl Butts.
In the Matter
No. 37371.
Supreme Court Oklahoma.
Dec.
Floyd Poe, L. Walker and Murdock & Tulsa, Langford, petitioner. Covington Donovan, Tulsa, & Q. Mac Atty. Gen., Williamson, respondents. CARLILE, Justice. Butts, November Earl
On an oil driller, employ while in the well of Rose