McCoy v. Spears

3 Citing cases

  1. Somers v. Avant

    244 Ga. 460 (Ga. 1979)   Cited 9 times

    Many of those states denying recovery apparently would permit recovery upon a clear showing of intent to benefit the mortgagee. Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N.Y. 280, 284 (1877); see also Case v. Egan, supra; Murray v. Creese, 80 Mont. 453 ( 260 P. 1051) (1927); Garfinkel v. Vinik, 115 N.J. Eq. 42 ( 169 A 527) (1933); Baber v. Hanie, 163 N.C. 588 ( 80 S.E. 57) (1913); McCoy v. Spears, 186 Okla. 33 (1939). Up to this point our focus has been directed mainly to the intent and motives of the remote grantee and his grantor without reference to the unambiguous terms of their agreement.

  2. State ex Rel. v. Hall

    191 Okla. 257 (Okla. 1942)   Cited 21 times
    In Hall, this court ruled that the state acted in its sovereign capacity in a foreclosure action notwithstanding the fact that the state merely derived its capacity to proceed against the grantee under the mortgage assumption clause.

    He correctly asserts that under our decisions the assumption clause, standing alone, as it does in the case, is not regarded as a third party beneficiary contract creating a direct contractual obligation between the grantee and the mortgagee. McCoy v. Spears, 186 Okla. 33, 95 P.2d 865; McBirney v. Bader, 181 Okla. 237, 73 P.2d 156; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Short, 180 Okla. 240, 68 P.2d 784; Page v. Hinchee, 174 Okla. 537, 51 P.2d 487; Beardsley v. Stephens, 134 Okla. 243, 273 P. 240. Upon the foregoing basis the defendant urges that since the right of the state was and is derivative, it acquired no greater right than did the mortgagor, and that the statute of limitations ran against the mortgagor, therefore it ran against the state.

  3. McCoy v. Spears

    186 Okla. 526 (Okla. 1940)

    The instant claim was not established as required and is wholly barred against the ancestor's estate, and the distributive shares received by the defendant heirs and beneficiaries cannot be now charged with such claim. McCoy v. Spears, 186 Okla. 33, 95 P.2d 865. The demurrer of the defendant heirs and beneficiaries was properly sustained.