*3 PHILLLPS, Chief Judge, Before MURRAH, HUXMAN and Circuit Judges.
PHILLIPS, Judge. Chief Company1 Oil this brought action quiet Wilkin and others title to three itby leases held lands, on the described following situate County, Oklahoma, Beckham to wit: Quarter The Southeast (SE>4) Sec- (9) Quarter tion Nine and the Northwest (NW%) Quarter (SW Southwest %) (10), Township Section Ten Ten (10) North, West, Range Twenty-one (21) containing 200 acres. dispute. facts are not in substantial 11, 1929, January On Ruby C. Webb and C. Webb, wife, gave
I. his on the land Commissioners the Land Office of the State Oklahoma secure an indebtedness August -On $3500. C. conveyed C. Webb Ruby Webb, subject I. to the the State of Oklahoma.2 The deed was made without Ruby consideration and I. any 'equitable Webb never claimed interest in the land. 7, 1937, Webbs, mineral July
deed, conveyed an undivided one-half interest to the minerals in the land to W. 1938, Hocker, E. Hocker. On joined, in which wife mineral his conveyed an undivided one-fourth interest in the minerals land to G. Scott. J. September 21, W. E. Hocker By will, testate. his died devised all of his interest in the minerals Hocker, widow, to Martha M. Hocker, Jr., E. Walter son. C. On March C. Webb executed Wayne Bay- W. Withington W. R. quitclaim deed to Wilkin. and delivered (Gilliland, With- City, Okl. less, 2. Hereinafter called State. Hereinafter called Shell. join that deed. that Webbs indebted State Ruby Webb I. did possession amount interest immediately into $6630.03 per per and thereon at ten annum the rents cent the land and collected 24, 1943, paid, until abstract ex- occupying tenant profits $23 June pense, attorney’s fee, through the and the possession, costs $350 in such remained action, 8, 1941, adjudging when a the tenant, further if December until appointed failed, the the defendants six for the land was receiver to, judgment, months from the pay referred infra. date of proceedings judgment, amount com- On November *4 together costs, interest, with attorney’s and District Court of in the menced an action fee, that an order of sale should issue mort- County, the to foreclose Beckham directed to the County, Sheriff of Beckham Webbs, made the To that action it gage. commanding him to advertise and sell Hocker, Wilkin, Walter Martha M. E. appraisement” “without the land to sat- Hocker, others, parties Scott, Jr., and isfy such judgment Appraisal was ex- November, 1941, personal In defendant. pressly mortgage. waived in the process foreclosure suit of in the service upon 'there- obtained all1 defendants was the January 24, 1944, On an order of sale to, exception the and the of Webbs issued. The State was the successful made on the Webbs Wilkin. Service was bidder at the sale. On March Copies of by publication. and the Wilkin an confirming the sale petition publication notice were mailed and directing the Sheriff of Beckham Coun- May 1, the to Webbs on ty to issue to the State a deed to the land. April1 20, 1944, On a Sheriff’s deed was military Wilkin the was inducted into issued State, to the which was recorded April the on United States April 24, 1944, in the records of honorably Beckham discharged 1942. He on County. Immediately thereafter, February copy petition State A of the possession went into copy land publication and a notice under were claim of title thereto. not mailed to Wilkin he no had actual notice discharge suit until' after his May 7, 1945, On Ford, Carl S. acting for military service. Shell, obtained from the State three oil and gas leases covering in the attorney aggregate On for the an June 200-acre tract land, each running in the foreclosure suit filed an affida- for State a years five which he proceeding containing in that averred vit provision provision and could not rentals and he did know as- that certain, by that control or should be any means within his void unless a well, State, producing oil within the control of the whether in paying quan- tities, been, sixty days completed should be was or within Wilkin had on the filing five-year within the prior period. to the date of such affida- The leases vit, duly military were naval service of the recorded 1945. On September 14, 1945, States, requested assigned United which he Ford and in represent leases to attorney appointed assignments Shell. The an that duly recorded on October the interests of defendants 1945. Prior purchase within the mean- or naval service Ford on Shell, behalf of Shell examined ing U.S.C.A.Appendix, 520. The of 50 abstract land, knew, title to the false. The affiant at which included affidavit was a tran- script of the it, proceeding. that Wilkin foreclosure time he made was in n relied upon validity States, United military service of the copy obtained, could be rendered foreclosure suit. that a of his address copy petition and of that a April 13, 1946, On within 60 days aft- publication notice could be served discharged Wilkin was er from the mil- by mail. him service, itary years within three aft- 24,1943, the date of the foreclosure judgment, On was entered er June application in filed an adjudging in the foreclosure fore- i6 deed, and an the Sheriff’s accounting set aside closure moneys permit him amount judgment, and of rents and other
vacate the mortgage. received redeem from the land. application alleged the time he at April 2, 1947, Wilkin filed an amended he action was instituted application to vacate the land; was the record owner deed, cancel the Sheriff’s which related filed its affidavit time the State taxes, and in he tendered to the publication, he was in obtain service taxes, interest, penalties all due Army, States active service of United on the land. Benning, Georgia; stationed at Fort May 13', 1948, filed second April Army, into the was inducted to¡ application amended vacate the Kansas; Leavenworth, at Fort Sheriff’s which he up set Georgia, in Benning, Fort transferred to suit, in the foreclosure the order Camp December, 1942, transferred sale, confirmation, sale, the order Wheeler, December, Georgia, deed; that, and the Sheriff’s and averred Sep- transferred to the Division in 96th *5 service, of military because he was tember, 4, 1944, January on he 1943; that unable to property redeem the from the embarked for the South Pacific combat prior the to issuance of the order area; States, that he returned the United sale, sale, of the Sheriff’s and the of 1945, 'honorably 29, and November was confirmation; and if that the Army, 21, discharged the February from and sale he were vacated could and would 1946;’ copy that not a of he did receive open tender into court the on amount due copy a petition the of nor of notice the mortgage indebtedness, the all taxes due publication in the foreclosure suit and had on property, legal the and all costs and suit; by no notice of such that reason of expenses due. facts, deprived foregoing the he was of ' He that further averred the Sheriff’s sale any opportunity of defending the fore- was made under an order of sale issued of opportunity closure suit and appraisal; without that under the statutes redeem the land from the entered Oklahoma, of foreclosure may sale therein; that if the State had exercised appraisal be made without until six months diligence made inquiry, due and reasonable entry after the of the judg- -foreclosure it could -have ascertained the fact he that ¡under ment; provisions that the of U.S. 50 address; military service was in the and his C.A.Appendix, 525, period the he that the foreclosure should have been the the United States stayed by provisions 50 reason computing could be included 520, U.S.C.A.Appendix, and that period six months’ and that such six reason of fact the the was not months’ expire did not until after stayed, deprived any opportunity he ¡confirmation the sale and order and prevented to defend the action and was that the sale and order of confirmation property redeeming from were void. judgment. foreclosure prayed the judgment He that be vacated that after the issuance alleged He further and the sale cancelled and that he per- be State, for a cash the Sheriff’s mitted to redeem. oil $3420, executed the three bonus July the State filed Ford, On a de- that on leases gas and Shell, the motion and murrer to amended motions. assigned Ford leases were overruled required The demurrer was and should be State that State thereon. elected to stand accounting rents and other make the land and of the from moneys received the state court received under rentals bonuses suit, leases. gas oil and adjudged it therein vacated, the order confirmation in the fore- prayed He cancelled; aside, cancelled, and the Sheriff’s deed vacated, set deed suit be closure full and the ordered that the State State make executed and delivered to him complete moneys received a accounting of release on December land, 27, agricultural from leases on the 1949. bonuses received from oil and leases in block of land, moneys from all received vicinity land, of the 200-acre tract of judg- sources from the Such other land. which, with the three Supreme ment Court affirmed to, above referred covered in the aggregate November 1949. Oklahoma on 10,000 approximately September acres. On Wilkin, ex rel. Com’rs of Land Office v. 17, 1946, it drilling commenced the producing first inwell such block on Section N, T completed 21 W 8, 1949, it on On December filed an Thereafter, prior November accounting, which included bonuses April 25, 1949, completed drilling under the three oil and rentals received of producing 10, 1949, wells such block on Sections December leases. On 15, 23, N, 24 and T R 21 objection inclusion in W. filed an nearest of such wells rentals, 200-acre tract delay accounting the bonuses and of land was accept located amount of Section stated that refused to SW^4 rentals, delay bonuses prayed expunge court January Shell commenced accounting all sums received the State drilling aof well in the of Section SW^ for bonuses and rentals. 9, offsetting the tract of 200-acre land. *6 By part drill stem tests in made the latter 29, 1949, state court On December April, 1949, proven it was be a to judgment in the foreclosure producer. adjudged proceeding, only entitled to interest at State was April 23, 1946, the value of the three per per annum rate five cent gas oil and approximately leases was $3 26, 1935, mortgage indebtedness from per acre. such value had increased required paid; that Wilkin was not until $1,000 per acre, by reason the oil and accounting, accept, moneys under the gas by wells drilled Shell. by received the State as bonuses and paid delay Prior to Shell had rentals, delay and that the State should due under the three rentals oil and moneys by apply the received it for 7, 1949, May leases. Prior the date delay rentals in reduction of bonuses delay year, for rentals due debt, mortgage pay but should such Shell tendered the amount due to Wilkin. moneys into the court of Beckham clerk refused tender. County, subject to be held further acquiring Prior Agreeable order of the court. to such leases, no investigation Shell made to de- judgment, paid the State to the clerk of military termine whether Wilkin was in the County the District Beckham Court of service of United States. by amount received it as bonuses and court The trial held that since the State rentals. party to the was a foreclosure proceedings, learned, November, 1948, first Shell purchaser not a bona value, it was fide amendments thereto filed motion that since Shell its title from foreclosure suit. In the by Wilkin State, Shell was not a bona fide Shell to assist it on the requested concluded, for value. It how- Supreme Oklahoma. Court of appeal to ever, that since Shell was not a party to refused. Shell proceedings by instituted Wilkin 21, 1949, February ex- Webbs suit, it was not bound thereby. quitclaim to Wilkin and delivered ecuted quieting It entered land. deed three oil leases, title but paid the full amount of ordered that should be with- indebtedness to the prejudice right State and out to Wilkin’s to maintain
a direct plaintiff attack affidavit shall in lieu thereof file an order of confirmation in the foreclosure setting affidavit forth either that the de- proceeding and the Sheriff’s deed to the fendant is service or that plaintiff State. is not able to determine whether or ” ** * not defendant is in such service. Wilkin and the other defendants below judgment vacate or pear to the pendency of the action he had no actual no- ders, at any proceedings tice sought sequence make his chaser in davit, or other evidence that during the erty, than have same fore the judgment date has “A “The district court shall have “Second. any [*] applicant thereof in time to been appealed, Okl.St.Anno. opened, Okl.St.Anno. to be time or publication defense; good faith, of it shall have modify or rendered, [*] satisfaction of the after the term opened, which, order By within three * * * and be let in to defend. Be- shall under this whom [*] its own a new trial or order shall be was made: but the title to shall in a without other service ** a judgment appear or [*] has not be affected judgments section, passed newspaper, may, order, years * at which such cross-appealed. court, by in court and it, [*] make it part, part, granted any prop- to a power after have the or order * * * * * in con- opened reads: or or- reads: [*] pur- affi- ap- in Sheriff’s deed cancelled and the order of titled that the Wilkin, under the facts averred in his mo- tion and the amendments puting Wilkin had no Wilkin, supra, the court held that while such indebtedness constituted a defense debtedness, willingness against the *7 in gation, tax, or assessment.” the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act Amendments of 1942 be included in com- by any which occurs action or proceeding erty sold or forfeited to enforce any law period now or hereafter ice by the In State ex part, the shall U.S.C.A.Appendix, against any to have the any period meaning Act law for the reads: “The nor shall arly * * * of October foreclosure of the be included in to redeem was a defense with- after rel. defense to the of now or hereafter person military Com’rs of redemption the date of for the § judgment vacated, period military 6, 1942, par^ § to be limited thereto, '525, bringing supra, court computing any 0f Land ability enactment of of real sucij as mortgage, Stat. and that provided amended Office was en- ** peri0(i prop- serv- obli- pay any the in- by * proceedings against defendants construc- vacated, confirmation and to redeem the summoned, provided tively as in Section land from the mortgage. “(1) In judgment order.” is valid or “A cessful “Fourth. For a petition, judgment shall not [******] U.S.’C.A.App., (12 Okl.St.Anno. party, any Okl.St.Anno. § defense is rendered; until in action or fraud, practiced by obtaining to the action on which it is § § adjudged * * 176). vacated on motion the judgment or in in part, part, that the suc- reads: reads: there com- the the three oil the three oil order of confirmation and to cancel the Sheriff’s deed? estoppel I. Three (3) (2) (1) proceeding Was Was Shell an Was Is Wilkin questions Shell Shell challenging to vacate A Bona precluded leases ? a bona fide are indispensable party leases? presented: Fide Purchaser? the Shell’s title judgment ratification or purchaser of party plaintiff A court, there shall be to an if a action who menced in judgment appearance purchases obtains a therein by the defend- of default judicial sale made entering judgment a under such plaintiff, judgment before ant, the is “purchaser good not'a in faith” setting court an affidavit within file shall phrase meaning of in 12 showing that the defendant is not that facts Okl.St.Anno. forth judgment if file such is If unable to service. vacated in Harjo case in accord with ing is such fraud, of the title irregularity, error, weight authority.6 of quality defeasible The purchaser fails.3 is purchaser a such the title took the If law. by operation upon it engrafted only notice that the with to an- title conveys his purchaser a process suit on Wilkin in the foreclosure notice, charged with is other, vendee by publication newspaper, in a that was ig- assert may not respect to which judgment suit might the foreclosure defeasible, is title norance, vendor’s that his by proceeding brought vacated good purchaser not a vendor is his that years entry within three after the if his that 176, supra, and under faith irregu judgment in the foreclosure suit reversal fails, by reason title vendor’s fraud, for extrinsic that title larities ac- title judgment, or vacation defeasible, if the and that fail.4 will also vendee, by him, as quired failed, by reason title the State of the vacation of 561, Harjo Johnston, of confirmation and cancellation pur partition party of the Sheriff’s Shell’stitle also would minor, at a sale Harjo, land of chased fail. under the made
partition
judgment was not void
suit. That
that
We conclude
Shell was not a bona
case,
face, but, as in the instant
on its
purchaser.-
fide
fraud,5 by means
for extrinsic
voidable
Harjo
Indispensable
which the
was obtained.
II. Was Shell An
Party?
party pur
an
brought
action
pendens” literally
“Lis
means a
vendees to vacate the
chaser’s
pending
pendens
suit.7
doctrine of lis
made thereunder and
cancel
deed
sale
may
jurisdiction,
be defined as
power,
purchaser’s
vendees.
court held
or control which the court retains over
original
nor
neither the
property
action,
involved
pending the
faith;
purchasers
good
vendees
continuance of
action.8
pur
quality
original
defeasible
who,
One
with notice of a pending
engrafted
by op
title
thereon
chaser’s
action, purchases,
party thereto,
from a
law;
eration
vendees were
action,
land
involved
where the court
knowledge
chargeable with
of the defeasible
jurisdiction
subject
has
of the
matter and
purchaser’s
quality
original
of the
title and
person
from whom such
ignorance
could not assert
thereof
de
acquired,
takes
rights
title,
their claim of
that the
fense of
va
parties to the litigation
as finally de
would defeat the
cation
*8
judgment
termined
or decree in such
purchaser
original
and his
title of
ven
action.9
The court further held that in
dees.
such
purchaser
Such a
takes subject
it is immaterial
situation
whether the
statutory power of the court to open
is
or vacated. The
judgment
reversed
hold
Morgan
City
Ardmore,
Morgan
City
Ardmore,
v.
182 Okl.
v.
182 Old.
3.
542,
785, 788;
leading
to 78
788,
542,
785,
P.2d
and the
P.2d
overruled as
78
299,
Cowles,
City
Marks v.
part
ease of
61 Ala.
of Bristow
not here material
Morgan
approval
City
486,
Groom,
Hedges
cited with
v.
v.
194 Okl.
ex rel.
supra.
Harjo
Johnston,
Ardmore,
939;
936,
v.
151 P.2d
996;
561,
985,
P.2d
Arnold
Okl.
104
187
Corp.
Intermediary
McKay,
7.
Finance
v.
130,
Joines,
4,
134.
150 P.
v.
50 Okl.
531;
101,
Zelic,
111 So.
Moore v.
93 Fla.
583,
664,
561,
Harjo
Johnston,
170
666.
N.E.
104
338 IU.
187
4.
v.
Okl.
City
995-997; Morgan
985,
v.
P.2d
Kelley
Kelley,
ex
Commonwealth
rel.
v.
8.
785,
Ardmore,
542,
788.
Okl.
78
182
310;
178,
307,
185
Inter
322 Pa.
mediary
A.
Corp.
McKay,
93
Finance
v.
an
made
false affidavit
and filed
attorney
111 So.
Fla.
foreclosure
for the State
suit.
Zelic,
N.E.
Ill.
170
338
9. Moore v.
Roberts,
664, 666;
pages
p.
Brockman
Note,
v.
at
A.L.R.
6. See
Harjo
Johnston,
seq.,
213 P.
et
cited
104 P.2d
Okl.
challenge
against
of Wilkin as
resting
constructive
default
Supreme
State to have the foreclosure
While
service.10
advised,
and order of confirmation
has not
vacated and
Court,
far
are
so
as we
Sheriff’s
wheth-
deed cancelled
redeem the
question of
upon the
passed directly
land.
within the
pend
action continues
er an
where the
pendens,
of lis
doctrine
The motion and amendments
filed
thereto
other
party without
against
was obtained
proceeding
by Wilkin in the foreclosure
newspaper,
in a
,bypublication
than
acquired
disclosed that Shell
had
such
which
time within
until
pendente
oil and
leases from
176, supra, it has
under
vacated
may be
§
Supreme
ap-
lite.
Court of Oklahoma
continues
pendens
lis
generally that
held
parently
regard
did not
Shell as an indis-
appeal,
an
which
time within
through the
pensable party
proceedings
brought
may be taken
error,
action
or other
writ of
by Wilkin.
judgment.11
to review
conclude,
We
for the reasons above stat-
ed,
judgment creditor
purchaser
pendente
Where the
Shell was a
sale
lite and was not
purchases
indispensable
the execution
during the
proceedings.
another
such
title
transfers
judg
of the action in
pendency
This
not,
does not mean
may
that Shell
pen-
rendered,
of lis
the doctrine
ment
case,
in the instant
assert that it
purc
vendee of
applies
dens
the three oil and
leases as a bona fide
plaintiff in a mort
haser,12
and where
purchaser
value,
purchases at the fore
suit
foreclosure
gage
precluded from challenging Shell’s title
his title to an
transfers
sale and
closure
thereto
reason of ratification or estopp
pendency of
fore
during the
other
el.16
suit,
pendens ap
doctrine
lis
closure
The proceedings
instituted Wil
purchaser.13
plies
the vendee
kin
the foreclosure
clearly
consti
challenge
could not
direct,
tuted a
collateral,
not a
attack
under the three
title
upon the foreclosure judgment and order of
vacation of the
he
obtained
until
confirmation.
of confirmation and the
and order
Under 12
Okl.St.Anno.
and 46 Okl.
§
He
the Sheriff’s deed.
could
cancellation
4, Wilkin
St.Anno.
was entitled to
redeem
While, upon
State.
only redeem
the land during a
of six months from
Shell, might
he
have asked
proper notice to
date
judgment.17
foreclosure
against
proceeding
Shell
for relief
suit,14
U.S.C.A.Appendix,
since
instituted
if lit
lite,
pendente
erally construed,
he was
was a
would apply only
Shell
to a
required
sought
so.15 Wilkin
redemption period
to do
no
after a sale of land to
obligation, tax,
he in
enforce an
relief
or assessment.
But,
in the foreclosure suit. Shell
Leffers,
could
in Le
stituted
Maistre v.
333 U.S.
*9
Johnson,
Tex.Civ.App. 116,
Tex.Civ.App.
116,
27
662, 664;
v.
10. Glaze
65 S.W.
662, 664;
Gilmore,
Edmonston,
Martin
411,
v.
72
109,
Turner v.
65 S.W.
210 Mo.
209;
199,
Dunlap,
193,
33,
Texas Co. v.
Ill.
S.W.
35-36.
44;
43,
Tex.Com.App.,
42,
41 S.W.2d
Fariss,
115,
Swartz
14.
v.
181 Okl.
72 P.2d
696,
Parpart,
679,
697,
Gay
106 U.S.
v.
738, 739.
456,
L.Ed. 256.
27
1 S.Ct.
Works,
Mellen v. Moline
Iron
15.
Malleable
Coleman,
81,
v.
78 Okl.
188 P.
11. Stuart
352, 370, 371,
781,
131 U.S.
S.Ct.
9
33
1063, 1065,
credited on the rentals, delay the bonuses Wilkin is not and paid to the clerk over be should estopped validity challenge of Shell’s further court, to the oil gas and leases.22 to account Merely asking the State court. not, delay rentals was bonuses and The is and the reversed cause think, assertion with the inconsistent we is remanded with instructions to enter a three oil and that title to Wilkin in accordance with the views merely It defeasible. expressed. herein made it court and fund brought the into HUXMAN, the event the title Judge (concurring Circuit to Shell available the especially). If failed. and its three oil gas leases Shell’s three title to 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 525 in clear lan- return of to the failed, entitled it would be guage provides spent that the time in mili- delay rentals.20 While and the bonuses tary service shall not be included in com- free may not have been position Wilkin’s puting the during may time property which affirmatively objected doubt until from be redeemed from any proceeding sale in delay the bonuses inclusion of for the any enforcement of obligation, tax accounting to the credit- rentals or otherwise, assessment. entry Stated into debt, the rec- on the ing thereof stops the running any Shell, in any that evidence ord is devoid redemption. It does not begin to interim, its detriment acted to again run until discharge therefrom. Wil- its three oil ratified belief that kin right thus had the to redeem when he gas leases. returned the service. redeemed, When Wilkin prop- title to the the mere jurisdictions In some erty was reinvested him. Shell’s title held to con is an action commencement failed with the failure of the title of its rule, liberal The more election. an stitute grantor, the State of Oklahoma. This is election, Oklahoma,21 an is that followed not, so because and under the efficacious, conclusive, must to be undisputed record, facts in the could not least, that the mere at extent some bona fide become a for value not constitute does action bringing of notice. It without was bound to take notice gained advantage has been if no an election knowledge have the law and was adverse has and the plaintiff by the thus bound to know that if Wilkin was in has not been position or changed the service he had the up- to redeem prejudiced. otherwise and, did, on return therefrom if he its title adjudication that the nowas Here, there ending fail would the title of by rentals received delay bonuses grantor. effectively disposes Since this on credited should controversy there is no need to in- they adjudication was final The terpret rely upon Harjo Johnston, debt. v. There is no evi- credited. sobe should Okl. P.2d 985. time, to its Shell, acted dence Harjo is case controversial one. that Wilkin had the belief detriment sharply was decided divided It court. leases. ratify three oil its elected strong dissenting opinion, contains a It did not elect conclude We syl- much to it. has commend the bonuses having remedy of court, which in labus of the the indebtedness due credited rentals application its limits to mi- law, states the State. interpre- That this was the nor’s interest. majority minority both the tation of that Shell at no evidence there Since is opinions. clearly indicated in both There the fact that acted relied time & Cream D. P. Colvert Ice Co. v. of Land Of 22. See Brunson Commissioners Co., 179 Okl. Products Citrus fice, 292 P. 145 Okl. P.2d Fields, 171 Okl. 21. Lester v. Bradley, 89; Sauer v. *11 726, 727. P. as to by Wilkin, tion leases failed making it Shell’s majority opinion is nothing in the Oklahoma, in owned ultimately interest minerals one-half apparent will whether E. and, M. by Hocker, Martha Walter sales Wilkin. judicial apply to all its doctrine Hocker, Jr., personally question is and Scott the determination since process adjudication of in complete served with the foreclosure not essential to interposed it for No prefer leave defense therein. controversy, I to no this practiced fraud was by Oklahoma Court. on with the them ultimate decision proceed- of Oklahoma. The foreclosure Rehearing. ings respect interest to their one-half respects all valid were in minerals n PHILLIPS, Judge: Chief regular right their their redeem to views Judge Murrah I expired adhere one-half in minerals interest opinion. Judge expressed our expiration in former months date six expressed in pro- Huxman adheres to the views the foreclosure in opinion. concurring his ceeding. the one-half in As to interest Hocker, by minerals owned Martha M. 7, 1937,C. July Ruby Webb and I. C. Scott, E. Hocker, Jr., and Walter Shell Webb, deed, conveyed an by un- mineral purchaser a bona fide took value and one-half interest in minerals divided its leases from the notice State without to in involved this action E. W. acquired by the title 8, 1938,Hocker, defect by min- Hocker. On to such interest. one-half joined, in which wife con- eral his veyed one-fourth interest in an undivided Accordingly, conclude that we minerals in the land to G. Scott. On binding one- leases are valid and as to the J. September Hocker died E.W. half in the minerals interest owned his will all of his By he devised testate. Hocker, Hocker, Jr., Walter E. Martha M. interest minerals Scott, right that and that inured widow, Hocker, and Walter M. Martha redemption by virtue of Wilkin’s to them perti- Hocker, Jr., E. other son. leases. subject to Shell’s opin- former are forth in our nent facts set is reversed and the cause here. need not reiterated ion and with instructions to is remanded enter opinion our former we did ex- views accordance with the ex- pass upon rights of pressly Shell Oil opinion pressed former in this our Company its under oil with opinion rehearing. on respect to the one-half interest in the min- Hocker, M. by Scott, erals Martha Hocker, That
and Walter E. issue Jr. argued fully orally briefs requested
rehearing and are we decide it. unnecessary determine
We deem redemption as
whether against constituted the State BROS., (E. v. LOMBARD Inc. GARTNER I. redemption only interest owned CO., DE DUPONT NEMOURS third party defendant). Wilkin, interest but one-half also Scott, Martha M. in the minerals owned No. 10663. Hocker, Hocker, and Walter E. Nei- Jr. Appeals Court United States appropriate for it be us de- ther would Third Circuit. question, State of because the cide that April 9, Argued proceeding. not a this Oklahoma is May 29, 1952. Decided opinion predicat
Our former proposition upon ed that as Wil
kin, good was not a
faith, and took its Wilkin’s redeem, redemp- Notes City, 221 P. Tex.Civ.App., Dunlap, 41 Co. v. 13. Texas Johnson, 42, 43, 44; Glaze v. S.W.2d in- three court took the oil the 92 L.Ed. 68 S.Ct. developed area ad- the volved herein and construed statute should be that the said thereto, of Wil- jacent charged with notice dropped friendly who eye to those “with an title and that its to right call.” kin’s to redeem country’s their affairs to answer their if Wilkin redeemed the leases would fail for proceeding case involved a That redemption Upon A the land.19 the cer- delinquent taxes. land for sale of Wilkin, to by Shell’s title such leases land proceeding. issued the tificate of sale failed, precluded in chal- unless Wilkin is the started the certificate of The issuance lenging title ratification redemp- because two-year period for running a estoppel. purchaser. pass to the title tion, did not but acquire only title purchaser could The him after the to Estoppel. tax deed issued through a III. Ratification redemption. for period expiration of We have said that Shell took land- period the that the The court held charged with knowl should military service was in owner quality edge of the defeasible of the State’s period for computing the not be included title and of Wilkin to case Maistre In the Le redemption.18 promptly to Wilkin acted assert redeem. certificate sale issuance military his rights return from proceedings step purchaser was a his motion relief service. He filed for un obligation, tax land to enforce sell the der Okl.St.Anno. within the three- peri- running step started the which year fixed limitation section. He passed no title to redemption, but od for rights after promptly redeemed case, In instant purchaser. established the decision State ex rel. order of sale of foreclosure Wilkin, Land Com’rs of Office v. Okl. step proceedings May, 1949, refused in- satisfy accept to sell delay rentals from Shell. It, likewise, started the run- debtedness. only possible basis for claim period redemp- for the Oklahoma ning estoppel prayer ratification question free is not from While tion. filed Wilkin the motion in the fore- opinion there is doubt, no are suit, we that the account for closure period between moneys for, difference substantial “rents and other received from a judgment follows said redemption which or on account of land.” Wilkin at no redemption requested period delay that the sale and a time bonuses mortgage debt, an inchoate We think credited on the follows sale. rentals be which Congress that the and when the did account for the intent it was rentals, delay objected should not be included bonuses period provided by computing accounting law to their inclusion they expunged redemption prayed of land be therefrom for the to enforce an on the sell obli- not credited debt. instituted tax, It follows court entered an order in the or assessment. state fore- gation, proceeding adjudging was entitled redeem the land closure State. bonuses rentals should not spirit repels case, Le Maistre of tbe amendment In the 383 U.S. at page 372, ‘any period page It covers 68 S.Ct. court such restriction. * * * provided by any procedure Florida is said law for re- “The said: property passes demption real for- § 205 since title sold or not covered only feited,’ ends see on issuance etc. We neither in that