Grim v. Cheatwood

operation potential oil of a well. pres- part surface was owner prem- leased ent as licensee premises ises, owner took such he found them and the owed lessees duty of him no care other than intentionally injure wantonly him. or proof allegation There was no or wrong in the or intentional wanton here. The defendant would owner under liable the surface by the same in this case and facts it is not liable wife token The demurrer surface lessee. been sustained. have evidence

I dissent. Vincent, Cheyenne, J. Scott and Dud- ley, City, Dudley, Duvall & Oklahoma plaintiffs for in error. et al. et ux. v. CHEATWOOD

GRIM Hoyt, A. K. Little and D. Okla- L. April 21, No. 1953. City, homa for defendants error. June Denied HALLEY, C. 2d 1049. allege that on and August prior 14, 1945, joint equal- were cotenants and owners ly one-half in an undivided interest rights all of mineral in and No. a tract of land referred to as tract 1, located in the of section NW/4 west, township north, range Roger Oklahoma; county, Mills individual was rights in a certain of mineral owner tract No. land referred to as tract of located and NW/4 situated range township north, section Roger county, Oklahoma. west, Mills the 12th of Au- That on gust, 1945, defendant Vernie Cheatwood connived, induced enticed and engaged in a Grim to become tiff Orval collusion and and with the cohorts, with two of his collaboration cards, defrauded marked totaling the of checks $1,000. plaintiff Orval sum of believing square, exe- honest Ver- delivered to cuted and mineral deeds certain nie Cheatwood checks. in return winnings Gladys sign (as pleaded by his Plaintiff Grim is them in petition), their equity either permit deed. orOn will 1st party November, 1949, plaintiff a by to benefit Orval Grim his fraud and grant discovered will guilty. re- relief to the that one less ferred to was instituted conni- We think there merit is to this con- vance, collusion, plan and a fraudulent Jur., tention. 24 Gaming, In §80, Am. of defendant Vernie Cheatwood and p. 456, it is said: his cohorts for the of defraud- ing him out of his courts, denying “Some while that money fairly play lost at at a for- Upon discovery plain- of the fraud bidden cannot be recovered back tiffs this to action set aside aciton, money in an by hold that won deeds, pray cancel the mineral cheating any game, at kind of whether that be such deeds set can- aside and allowed forbidden, paid by quieted celed and title in them loser without a of the fraud to the minerals. be the view taken wager that by a won such undue means Defendants Cheatwood demurred to eyes is not won in the law, petition ground money paid is that it did not state facts sufficient by consideration mistake.” constitute a action. The trial Cobb, Lockman 279, v. 77 Ark. sustained as 546, Supreme S.W. Court Arkan- plaintiff but overruled it as sas said: plaintiff Gladys ap- Grim. Plaintiffs peal and assert that the court erred as plaintiff put “Where was induced to a matter of law in the de- up large sums a as bet on against murrer to the plain- as race, being represented foot a it tiff Orval Grim. him one of the racers was certain win, but in fact there was no borfa It is the contention of defendants pretended race, fide but race the cause of action party won, plaintiff other was en- transaction, a a transaction lost.” amount by forbidden law and made crime a In that case the court said: by statute, and that nei- such case equity ther of law nor one of wrong “In what or crime were the grant relief to either de- defendants any rights growing force out of such any, conspiracy by licto? the defendants If it was a transaction, but will leave the to defraud money; them, tiff and to steal his by where it found obtain deceit falsehood the correctly ruled sus- therefore by inducing him to believe taining their demurrer to the that a foot race run was to be against Orval Grim. they actually wagering were their against other, upon if; money, one This, general rule, as a is a correct and to induce him believe he was Freeman statement v. law. *** betting upon a foot But race. Wright, 497, 675; Okla. P. 2d ran, race was never run. Two men but Love, v. 132 Okla. Smithson according previous understand- Brinley Williams, v. ing upon the one whom he staked 183, 114 P. 2d 463. passed down, fell the other and was declared ahead general concede the rule *** By deceit winner. fraud and by contended It defendants. caused him to make wa- contention, however, there their ger tending pre- money, and robbed him of. exception *** to the a well-established had lost prac- fraud is effect that where was not delicto with the de- order to obtain ticed the winner fendants.” of facts he was not in reached delicto with conclusion has been The same defendant Vernie in Hobbs of facts a similar supra. Cobb, confederates. Lockman 93 S.W. v. Mo. Appeals, Court Circuit action is not an action to Wright, 147 Circuit, in Stewart 8th losses sustained in a Fulchire, 25 N.C. In Webb. F. 321. equity Their action is one in court held: 485, 40 Am. Dec. to cancel and set aside mineral deeds procurement because of any kind in their “Money at won or forbid- allowed and lack of consideration paid jugglery, den, means of execution, plead- and since under the of the the loser ings parties the were not in delic- fraud, back.” be recovered to, plaintiffs may maintain this action although necessary it will be for them Allen, Falkenberg The case of plead prove gambling the trans- defend- cited action in order to establish fraud and position ants, not sustain does lack of consideration. there the man that was because duped money back be- demanded his parties Where the are not in was refused fore the foot race and it delicto, equity pro- will intervene in the opinion held he was guilty, tection of one less notwithstand- the ing his unclean hands. Coleman approval con- quoted a statement with Coleman, 48 Ariz. supra, in tained Hobbs Pomeroy’s Equity Vol. 3 Jur. §942. applicable here, which is While lows: there are some authorities contrary, the we think the better not courts will “The doctrine weight authority support of the plaintiff' delicto who is in aid a conclusion reached. uni- is not a rule of with the defendant application; the re- versal Plaintiffs’ stated- a of principle action, and the trial erred pubr contravene in such case would lief sustaining demurrer thereto impair good of so- lie morals against plaintiff Orval Grim. ciety. should not be Therefore the rule applied in case in which to withhold right recovery will, of greater extent, would, of- the relief fend depend course, upon the evidence. promote public To morals. public highest good aim of Reversed, with directions to overrule application of this of the court doctrine.” proceed- for further ings in accordance with the views here- expressed. Plaintiff Orval the alle- gations not WELCH, CORN, O’NEAL, and WIL- voluntarily enter into a real and honest V.C.J., LIAMS, JOHNSON, JJ., concur. game with Vernie JJ., BLACKBIRD, DAVISON confederates dissent. lose his in such a was induced to enter into a fixed and DAVISON, (dissenting). I un- for the agree majority opin- with the able robbing him of his question no There can be ion. money by the of marked cards. entered in error knowledge of con- Plaintiff had no purpose of win- for the the card spiracy the time he en- and fraud at opponents. ning money from his discovery game. Upon of the tered the engage parties voluntarily this action prohib- gambling game, set aside the deeds. Under which is by law, ited neither ed, through government, illegal of law courts nor act he cheats equity, person and the other in the absence of a statute him, cheats be left must authorizing settle the affair' between themselves. losses, should aid or assist either rights growing to enforce illegal transaction. Courts should my public opinion, morals become the arbiters of incidental good society would be best served participants games by following the rule in the above-cited pol- which are law. Public felt trial icy prompts decline courts regard- courts should decide issues distinguish degrees turpi- between ing payment gambling debts, since engage tude of who in outlawed participants none of the of the unlaw- transactions, since courts otherwise illegal gambling game ful and could might compelled to decide which come into court clean hands. party cheated the most. am, opinion upheld have been actually bar, In the case at defendants’ demurrer gambling game went with the petition. and lost for which he exe- respectfully I, therefore, exchange dissent. Then, cuted checks. convey- checks, he executed that Mr. Jus- authorized to state nearly analogous ances. The most in the fore- BLACKBIRD concurs, tice reports is that of Wallace going views. Opinham, 73 Cal. A. 2d 709, wherein, “* * * piaintiff The engaged voluntarily v. WADE. in that unlawful FIRE INS. CO. HARTFORD course of which May No. 35608. now to recover seeks lost second count The this suit. 9, 1953. Denied June necessarily complaint founded 2d participation unlaw- in that prohibited could not ful prove deceit, alleged fraud and bets, with- he lost his means of which showing fraud out evidence partici- incident exercised pation of cards which in that * * *. statute. case, court, used the The in that applica- particularly lowing language, here:

ble “* * * illegally, Where a he is to suffer loss of his consequence, if as the sought except where remedy par- have a provisions ticular some statute. Here gaming accompanied is a case cheating. Clearly gaming if had fair, been the law would no rem-

edy. only question is, then alter think We it will not. If man thus puts himself in a condition to be cheat-

Case Details

Case Name: Grim v. Cheatwood

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Apr 21, 1953

Citation: 257 P.2d 1049

Docket Number: 35178

Court Abbreviation: Okla.