Brady v. McCrory

7 Citing cases

  1. Hanlon v. McLain

    242 P.2d 732 (Okla. 1952)   Cited 13 times
    In Hanlon v. McLain, 206 Okla. 227, 242 P.2d 732, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma refused to follow these cases and applied the doctrine of estoppel by deed.

    In this case it was a sufficient encumbrance or a lack of title of such magnitude as to cause both grantors and grantees to lose their property in the subsequent foreclosure. Grantors cite cases wherein we have upheld the application of the statute in various situations: Brown v. Barker (1912) 35 Okla. 498, 130 P. 155; Weaver v. Drake (1920) 79 Okla. 277, 193 P. 45; Holleman v. Cushing (1921) 84 Okla. 156, 202 P. 1029; Barnes v. Morris (1924) 105 Okla. 17, 231 P. 466; Brady v. McCrory (1925) 108 Okla. 40, 233 P. 734. Conceding that the after-acquired statute was interpreted in favor of the grantee or mortgagee, the grantors say that in all these cases the grantor had an imperfect title or less than a full title and the statute was applicable in such cases.

  2. Loy ex rel. Union Securities Co. v. Kessler

    39 N.W.2d 260 (N.D. 1949)   Cited 8 times

    The court held that where land in the adverse possession of another is conveyed, the grantee may maintain an action in the name of the grantor to recover the land from the adverse holder and it was not error to permit the grantor to be made a party plaintiff by amendment. In Brady v. McCrory, 108 Okla. 40, 233 P. 734, it is said, "A grantor not in possession, however, may prosecute an action for the benefit of his grantee, or the grantee may prosecute the action in the name of his grantor, or may associate himself with his grantor in the action." See also Smith v. Jos. W. Moon Buggy Co. 66 Okla. 333, 169 P. 875; Slyman v. Alexander, 126 Okla. 232, 259 P. 224; Cox v. Fowler, 141 Okla. 110, 283 P. 995; Twyford v. Stephens, 183 Okla. 534, 83 P.2d 578.

  3. Concho Washed Sand Co. v. Sallstrom

    157 P.2d 176 (Okla. 1945)   Cited 3 times

    "A grantee who holds deeds made in violation of champerty statute, section 1940, O.S. 1931, may maintain action to recover lands conveyed in such deed in his name and in the name of his grantor, and on objection by adverse party to such grantee's maintaining such action in his name he may move to have his grantor made party plaintiff, or if dead, his legal representative, and it is not error for the trial court to grant such motion when timely made." See, also, Gannon v. Johnston, 40 Okla. 695, 140 P. 430; Brady v. McCrory, 108 Okla. 40, 233 P. 734. Furthermore, defendants, by cross-petition, sought to have title quieted in them.

  4. Wirick v. Nance

    62 P.2d 997 (Okla. 1936)   Cited 11 times

    "Where the holder of the legal title to real estate who is out of possession conveys such title to a third person who is not in possession, in contemplation of law, as between the grantor, grantee, and the person in possession, holding adversely, claiming to be the owner thereof, the title remains in the grantor or original proprietor, and the person in possession has a right to purchase in such title during the pendency of an action commenced against him for possession by this grantor for the benefit of the champertous grantee." See, also, Miller v. Grayson, 64 Okla. 122, 166 P. 1077; International Land Co. v. Smith, 103 Okla. 101, 229 P. 601; Brady v. McCrory, 108 Okla. 40, 233 P. 734, and Davis v. Manhard, 172 Okla. 85, 45 P.2d 1095. So, if the former deed from Bertha Pauline Nance to Wimbish was champertous and void, then her deed to defendants after commencement of the action was valid, and the defendants must prevail; while if the Wimbish deed was valid, then the deed to defendants was of no effect and the plaintiff must prevail. It thus appears at the outset that the principal question to be determined herein is whether the deed executed by Bertha Pauline Nance to Robert J. Wimbish was champertous.

  5. Crawford v. LeFevre

    61 P.2d 196 (Okla. 1936)   Cited 7 times

    To the action of the court the defendants excepted, and urge on appeal that the court erred in allowing the substitution of the administrator of Henri Lefer as party plaintiff. The trial court did not err in this respect and followed the law as has been consistently adhered to by this court, as laid down in the case of Gannon v. Johnston, 40 Okla. 695, 140 P. 430, and Brady v. McCrory, 108 Okla. 40, 233 P. 734. The execution and admitting to probate of the will which attempts to disinherit her spouse, in contravention of section 11301, C. O. S. 1921, does not have the effect to disinherit the spouse.

  6. Cox v. Fowler

    283 P. 995 (Okla. 1929)   Cited 4 times

    Every essential element existed to make the deed champertous. And we have held that deeds taken in the face of section 1678, supra, as here shown, are champertous and void as against the party in possession: Jennings v. Brown, 20 Okla. 294, 94 P. 557; Larney v. Aldridge, 31 Okla. 447, 121 P. 151; Jones v. S. H. Kress Co., 54 Okla. 194, 153 P. 655; Brady v. McCrory, 108 Okla. 40, 233 P. 734; Warner v. Wickizer, 61 Okla. 200, 160 P. 885; Hammett v. Montgomery, 67 Okla. 235, 170 P. 689. However, under the holdings of this court, an action can be maintained by the grantor in such deed for the use and benefit of the grantee, or the grantor can bring an action in the name of his grantee, or the grantee can join the grantor as plaintiff with himself and maintain the action.

  7. Slyman v. Alexander

    259 P. 224 (Okla. 1927)   Cited 11 times

    See sections 1678 and 1679, C. O. S. 1921; Larney v. Aldridge, 31 Okla. 447, 122 P. 151; Johnson v. Myers, 32 Okla. 421, 122 P. 713; Chilton v. Dietrich, 46 0kla. 718, 148 P. 1045; Coblentz v. Ives, 52 Okla. 44, 152 P. 584. But they were good and valid as between the parties — that is, as between Clara Alberty, B. F. Sullivan, and M. F. Steil. Brady v. McCrory, 108 Okla. 40, 233 P. 734, and cases therein cited. A grantor not in possession, however, may prosecute an action for the benefit of his grantee, or the grantee may prosecute the action in the name of his grantor, or may associate himself with his grantor in the action.