Cooper v. Spiro State Bank

13 Citing cases

  1. Trout v. Williams

    281 P. 224 (Okla. 1929)

    Descent and Distribution — Indians — Devolution of Estate of Child Allottee. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed upon authority of Levina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank (No. 18265), 137 Okla. 265, 278 P. 648, decided by this court April 10, 1928, and cases therein cited. Error from District Court, McClain County; Tom P. Pace, Judge.

  2. Meashintubby v. Harris

    281 P. 779 (Okla. 1929)

    Descent and Distribution — Indians — Father of Full-Blood Choctaw Child, Dying in 1908, Seized of Allotment, Held to Inherit It to Exclusion of Mother. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed upon authority of Levina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank (No. 18265), 137 Okla. 265, 278 P. 648, decided by this court April 10, 1928, and cases therein cited. Error from District Court, Carter County; Asa E. Walden, Judge.

  3. Watson v. Richards

    279 P. 328 (Okla. 1929)   Cited 2 times

    Descent and Distribution — Devolution of Indian Allotment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed upon authority of Levina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank, No. 18265, decided by this court April 10, 1928, 137 Okla. 265, 278 P. 649. Error from District Court, Jefferson County; M. W. Pugh, Judge.

  4. Watson v. Ellis

    279 P. 325 (Okla. 1929)   Cited 2 times

    Descent and Distribution — Devolution of Indian Allotment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed upon authority of Levina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank, No. 18265 decided by this court April 10, 1928, 137 Okla. 265, 278 P. 648. Error from District Court, Jefferson County; M. W. Pugh, Judge.

  5. Lowman v. Sharp

    279 P. 354 (Okla. 1929)   Cited 2 times

    Descent and Distribution — Devolution of Indian Allotment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed upon authority of Levina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank, No. 18265, decided by this court April 10, 1928, 137 Okla. 265, 278 P. 648. Error from District Court, Jefferson County; M. W. Pugh, Judge.

  6. Jacobs v. Ambrister

    278 P. 653 (Okla. 1928)   Cited 6 times

    Indians — Devolution of Minor's Allotment — Inheritance by Surviving Mother to Exclusion of Sister. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed upon authority of Levina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank, No. 18265, decided by this court April 10, 1928. ( 137 Okla. 265, 278 P. 648.) Error from District Court, Carter County; W. F. Freeman, Judge.

  7. De Roin v. Whitetail

    312 P.2d 967 (Okla. 1957)   Cited 1 times

    Appellee, on the other hand, seeks to uphold the trial court's interpretation that the above quoted statute has the effect of excluding all kindred who are not of the blood of the transmitting ancestor and not just all kindred of the half-blood who are not of the blood of the transmitting ancestor. The above quoted half-blood statute has been considered by this court in Hill v. Hill, 58 Okla. 707, 160 P. 1116; O'Neill v. Lauderdale, 80 Okla. 170, 195 P. 121; McKay v. Roe, 96 Okla. 87, 219 P. 921; Thompson v. Smith, 102 Okla. 150, 227 P. 77; Gray v. Chapman, 122 Okla. 130, 243 P. 522; Cooper v. Spiro State Bank, 137 Okla. 265, 278 P. 648, with a dissenting opinion at 279 P. 903; Zweigel v. Lewis, 139 Okla. 171, 281 P. 787; In re Yahola's Heirship, 142 Okla. 79, 285 P. 946; Moffett v. Conley, 63 Okla. 3, 163 P. 118; Bates v. Huddleston, 146 Okla. 259, 293 P. 1047; In re Moran's Estate, 174 Okla. 507, 51 P.2d 277, 103 A.L.R. 227; and In re Long's Estate, 180 Okla. 28, 67 P.2d 41, 44, 110 A.L.R. 1002. In none of such cases was there any contention made that such statute excluded any kindred other than kindred of the half-blood.

  8. In re Griffin's Estate

    199 Okla. 676 (Okla. 1948)   Cited 31 times
    In Griffin, we held that a probate court had jurisdiction to try title if, but only if, all contestants to the property were claiming as heirs or devisees of the decedent.

    In doing so, the court has jurisdiction to determine the source of title. Cooper v. Spiro State Bank, 137 Okla. 265, 278 P. 648. It follows that, in determining the contest between Mrs. Dohner and the brothers and sisters of Mr. Griffin, the county court had jurisdiction to determine whether title to the lands in question was vested in Mrs. Griffin at the time of her death, since, if title was so vested, both Mrs. Dohner and the brothers and sisters were heirs of Mr. Griffin. Likewise, the court had jurisdiction to determine whether the property was acquired by joint industry of Mr. and Mrs. Griffin during coverture and its descent governed by said proviso. It follows, therefore, that the county court and the district court on appeal had jurisdiction to determine the names and identity of the heirs of Mr. Griffin and the proportions each inherited in these lands, and the incidental question as to whether they descended under the said proviso, since said questions come within the probate jurisdiction of the county court.

  9. In re Pryor's Estate

    181 P.2d 979 (Okla. 1947)   Cited 6 times

    We have held in case a party dies intestate leaving surviving his wife and several children and his estate is distributed one-third to the surviving wife and two-thirds equally to the children, that if one of the children dies during minority, without having been married, subdivision 7 becomes applicable and its interest in all the estate so inherited from its father goes, not to its mother, but to the surviving children and the issue of the children who are dead, of the deceased father. See He-ah-to-me v. Hudson, supra; Cooper v. Spiro State Bank, 137 Okla. 265, 278 P. 648 Zweigel v. Lewis, 139 Okla. 171, 281 P. 787; L. R.A. 1916C, 926; Deal v. Logan, 183 Okla. 513, 83 P.2d 563. In the case of He-ah-to-me v. Hudson, supra, we quoted, with approval the following language from the case of De Castro v. Barry, 18 Cal. 97, wherein the California court considered a similar provision of the California statute:

  10. Deal v. Logan

    83 P.2d 563 (Okla. 1938)   Cited 3 times

    This court has heretofore held subdivision 7, supra, to be an exception to the preceding general provisions of section 1617, O. S. 1931, including subdivision 2. McKay v. Roe, 96 Okla. 87, 219 P. 921; Cooper v. Spiro State Bank, 137 Okla. 265, 278 P. 648, 279 P. 903. And since this is an exception to the general rule, it follows that it should be strictly construed and should not be enlarged or extended by judicial construction: the doubts and implications should be resolved in favor of the rule rather than the exception.