JONES v. SITTERLY

JONES v. SITTERLY
1941 OK 411
120 P.2d 341
190 Okla. 36
Case Number: 30303
Decided: 12/23/1941
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

JONES et al.
v.
SITTERLY

Syllabus

¶0 TAXATION--CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE--Validity of deed from grantee in resale tax deed.
In an action to quiet title, where the plaintiff purchased lots from the grantee in a resale tax deed, such purchaser is entitled to possess herself of the lots by court action, and the deed from the county treasurer to her immediate grantor, who purchased for her, is not champertous, even though her grantor had never been in possession of the lots, the procedure being a part of the taxing machinery of the state.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Leslie Webb, Judge.

Action by Pearl Sitterly against Jess( D. Jones et ux. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Chas. R. Nesbitt, of Tulsa, for plain tiffs in error.
C. R. Thurlwell, of Tulsa, for defend ant in error.

CORN, V. C. J.

¶1 This is an action to quiet title to some vacant lots, where the basis of the plaintiff's title is a re sale tax deed. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant brought this appeal.

¶2 The sole question presented on appeal is the contention of the appellant that the plaintiff's deed is champertous by reason of the alleged fact that the plaintiff's grantor, the grantee in the re sale tax deed, was not in possession of the lots at the time of the making of the deed.

¶3 The record reflects that a Mr. Ballenger purchased the lots in question at a resale April 17, 1939, for Mrs. Sitterly with her money; that he took title in his name, took possession of the lots as her agent, removed trees thereupon and cut the weeds and grass on the lots. December 6, 1939, he deeded the lots to Mrs. Sitterly.

¶4 The defense is foreclosed by the holding of this court in the case of Webb v. Ketcham et al., 157 Okla. 294, 12 P.2d 191, wherein it is stated in paragraph 2 of the syllabus, as follows:

"Such a purchaser is entitled to possess himself of the land by court action, and the deed from the county to his immediate grantor, who purchased for him, is not champertous, even though his grantor had never been in possession of the land, the procedure being a part of the tax collecting machinery of the state."

¶5 The judgment is affirmed.

¶6 WELCH, C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, GIBSON, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.