Whitehead v. Stevens

1 Citing case

  1. Folsom v. Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co.

    94 Okla. 181 (Okla. 1923)   Cited 19 times
    In Folsom v. Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co., 94 Okla. 181, 221 P. 480, Conditt v. McKinley, 94 Okla. 265, 221 P. 1007, Martin v. Hostetter, 59 Okla. 246, 158 p. 1174, and Richmond v. Robertson, 50 Okla. 635, 151 P. 203, the order of sale did not run in the name of the state of Oklahoma.

    " To the contention of defendants in error that the plaintiffs in error should offer to redeem the property or pay what is due under the mortgages we cannot agree, under the alleged facts and under the state of the record in this case, and we do not think the case of Whitehead v. Stevens, 54 Okla. 337, 152 P. 445, has any application to a void sale, as the decision in that case of based upon an entirely different state of facts. While we do not base our decision upon the fact that the defendants in error, since the filing of this appeal, have secured new orders of sale and proceeded to resell the property, this fact is very persuasive on this court that, they are not very strongly convinced that the sale complained of here, consummated under the conditions, was valid.