Smith v. Braley

12 Citing cases

  1. Faurot v. Moore

    196 F.2d 883 (10th Cir. 1952)

    Appellants urge in substance the contention that the only right or remedy which the bank asserted or was in position to assert in the second action in the state court was to subject the land to a lien for the collection of the personal judgment rendered against Thomas Faurot in the first action in the state court; that the judgment rendered in the second action was nothing more than an ancillary judgment to create such lien; that no issues were raised between the two defendants; that neither defendant sought any relief against the other; and that the court was without jurisdiction to cancel and set aside the deed as between the defendants in the action. Ordinarily, a judgment in favor of plaintiff does not have the effect of adjudicating matters between codefendants, unless their conflicting or hostile claims were brought into issue and litigated. Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220, 184 P. 586. And ordinarily, a judgment or decree which cancels a conveyance because executed in fraud of creditors does not have the effect, as between the grantor and grantee in such conveyance, of divesting the grantee of title and revesting title in the grantor, unless their conflicting claims in respect to title were brought in issue and litigated. Apple v. Bridgman, 122 Okla. 196, 253 P. 1002; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. First National Bank, 129 Okla. 204, 264 P. 142.

  2. Smith v. Williamson

    1953 OK 115 (Okla. 1953)   Cited 10 times
    In Smith, Id., we held that plaintiff's interest in realty did not vest until a life tenant died. Plaintiff's action, therefore, was not barred by limitations.

    "As a general rule, a judgment settles nothing between coplaintiffs or codefendants unless their conflicting or hostile claims were brought into issue, as by cross-petition or by separate and adverse answer or otherwise, and were thereupon actually litigated and adjudicated." This rule is also stated in Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220, 184 P. 586. The earliest expression of the rule is stated in M.B. Keagy v. Wellington National Bank, 12 Okla. 33, 69 P. 811, where the Territorial Supreme Court said:

  3. Meriwether v. Bowling

    84 P.2d 1 (Okla. 1938)   Cited 8 times
    In Meriwether v. Bowling, 184 Okla. 1, 84 P.2d 1, it is held that where the former owner of land seeks to cancel a tax deed and quiet title as against the tax deed holder, and alleges that the land is not taxable, or, if taxable, that the taxes have been paid, it is not necessary that plaintiff tender the amount of taxes, penalties, etc.

    This contention is also well taken. Farmers' Hardware Implement Co. v. Thacker (1915) 54 Okla. 425, 153 P. 1144; Smith v. Braley (1919) 76 Okla. 220, 184 P. 586; Carter v. McCasland (1928) 131 Okla. 253, 268 P. 706. Judgment reversed, with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial and to reshape the issues if the parties so desire, and proceed not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.

  4. Wheeler v. Smoot

    83 P.2d 186 (Okla. 1938)   Cited 5 times

    We hold that when the trial court entered its judgment in cause No. 3545, Marian E. Stutterd v. Wheeler et al., it completely established the existing rights between the Wheelers and the plaintiff. In the brief of plaintiff in error is cited the second syllabus of the case of Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220, 184 P. 586, as follows: "In an action in ejectment, a former judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, between the same parties and involving the same subject-matter, is conclusive as to the respective parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter involved in the former case, but as to every matter germane to the issues, which could or might have been litigated and determined therein, whether the same was pleaded or not; but such judgment does not have the effect of settling conflicting or hostile claims between coplaintiffs or codefendants, unless such claims were brought into issue and were actually litigated and adjudicated."

  5. Stuckwish v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co.

    59 P.2d 285 (Okla. 1936)   Cited 8 times

    See, also, Goodeagle v. Moore, 89 Okla. 211, 214 P. 725. To the same effect, Dill v. Flesher, 73 Okla. 185, 175 P. 359; Smith et al. v. Braley et al., 76 Okla. 220, 184 P. 586; Baker v. Leavitt, 54 Okla. 70, 153 P. 1099; Corrogated Culvert Company v. Simpson Township, 51 Okla. 178, 151 P. 854, 4 A. L. R. 1170; Prince v. Gosnell, 47 Okla. 570, 149 P. 1162. The pleadings of the parties herein admit the rendition of the former judgment as shown; they further admit that same was rendered upon a demurrer to the evidence, one of the grounds of which demurrer touched the merits of the cause.

  6. King v. Richardson

    54 Idaho 420 (Idaho 1934)   Cited 9 times

    mber Co., 128 Wn. 287, 222 P. 898; St. John Irr. Co. v. Danforth, 50 Idaho 513, 298 P. 365; 34 C. J. 781, 818, 909; United States v. County Court of Knox County, 122 U.S. 306, 7 Sup. Ct. 1171, 30 L. ed. 1152; In re Bell's Estate, 153 Cal. 331, 95 P. 372; Allen v. Allen, 159 Cal. 197, 113 P. 160; Bushnell v. Larimer Weld Irr. Co., 56 Colo. 92, 136 P. 1017; Hare Mining Milling Co. v. Keys, 120 Okl. 217, 251 P. 77; Cooley v. Snake River District Imp. Co., 78 Or. 384, 152 P. 1190; Fischer v. Hammons, 32 Ariz. 423, 259 P. 676; Armijo v. Mountain Elec. Co., 11 N.M. 235, 67 Pac. 726; Hawkins v. Reber, 81 Wn. 79, 142 P. 432; State v. Glover, 165 Wn. 567, 5 P.2d 1014), or should have been raised in such action. ( Joyce v. Murphy Land etc. Co., supra; South Boise Water Co. v. McDonald, supra; Judish v. Rovig, supra; State v. Glover, supra; 34 C. J. 780, 818, 909; 15 R. C. L. 962; First Nat. Bank v. Schruben, 125 Kan. 417, 265 Pac. 53; Conner v. Bank of Bakersfield, 183 Cal. 199, 190 Pac. 801; Smith v. Braley, 76 Okl. 220, 184 P. 586; Cook v. Elmore, 27 Wyo. 163, 192 P. 824.) This action therefore is not maintainable because appellant has heretofore had his opportunity for defense and attack, and an adverse judgment determining all these matters, both actually and potentially has become res adjudicata thereof.

  7. Cox v. Colbert

    135 Okla. 218 (Okla. 1929)   Cited 20 times

    It is well recognized that a judgment settles nothing between codefendants or coplaintiffs, unless their conflicting or hostile claims are brought into issue by some sort of pleading. 23 Cyc. 1279-80, and cases cited; 15 R. C. L. 1013; Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220, 184 P. 586. The purpose of the action at bar was to recover real estate which belonged to the allottee, Ben Pershica, the grandfather of plaintiff, the title to which land has never been in litigation between the plaintiff and the defendants, certainly to such an extent as to preclude the assertion of her title as against defendants, and we hold, therefore, that the plaintiff has established, by sufficient evidence, that she was the daughter of Jeff Colbert, the granddaughter of Ben Pershica, and that the judgment of the county court in the heirship proceeding does not estop the plaintiff.

  8. McCormick v. Stonebraker

    133 Okla. 34 (Okla. 1928)   Cited 9 times

    We find no prejudicial or reversible error in the admission of the testimony respecting the Lewis deed. Plaintiff in error says the court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that the conveyance to him, the defendant, was champertous and void, and calls attention to the case of Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220, 184 P. 586, and others holding that the statute did not apply to deeds executed by Indians on their restricted lands. It has been held in the cases of Sanders v. LeForce, 93 Okla. 128, 219 P. 925, and International Land Co. v. Smith, 103 Okla. 101, 229 P. 601, that the exception of Indian allottees and their heirs under the provisions of section 1679, C. O. S. (section 2260, R. L. 1910), did not extend to persons other than the allottees, or the heirs of such allottees. As was said in those cases, the grantor, Randolph, in the deed to defendant here, was not an allottee or an heir.

  9. Apple v. Bridgman

    253 P. 1002 (Okla. 1927)   Cited 4 times

    As to whether the first judgment was res adjudicata and divested the defendant of title acquired by deed of January 29, 1923, under the pleadings in said cause, the authorities are numerous. In the case of Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220, 184 P. 586, the court said: "* * * While a judgment on the merits is final and conclusive as between the parties thereto and their privies, not only as to matters actually litigated, but also as to every ground of recovery or defense which might have been presented and determined therein germane to the issues therein, such judgment does not have the effect of settling matters between coplaintiffs or codefendants unless their conflicting or hostile claims were brought into issue and were actually litigated and adjudicated."

  10. Bilby v. Morton

    119 Okla. 15 (Okla. 1925)   Cited 9 times
    In Bilby, a minority stockholder filed suit against the officers of the Indian Land Trust Company fifteen years after the officers used corporate funds to purchase land in their own names. Within twenty-two months of learning of the fraud, the stockholder filed suit.

    " In support of their contention the defendants have cited the following Oklahoma cases: Cressler v. Brown, 79 Okla. 170, 192 P. 417; DeWatteville v. Sims, 44 Okla. 708, 146 P. 224; Henthorn v. Tidd, 63 Okla. 280, 164 P. 783; Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220, 184 P. 586; and cases from other states; but an examination of these cases shows that they are not in conflict with the rule above announced. 4. Defendants further contend that the court erred in appointing a receiver to take charge of the affairs of the company and collect, hold and manage its assets under the orders of the court.