LITTLE v. MIRACLE

LITTLE v. MIRACLE
1934 OK 100
29 P.2d 970
168 Okla. 388
Case Number: 21716
Decided: 02/20/1934
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

LITTLE
v.
MIRACLE et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Guardian and Ward--Action to Cancel Guardian's Deed--Statutes of Limitation Applicable Regardless of Validity of Deed.
The statutes of limitations provided in sections 100 and 1444 O. S. 1931, and the second subdivision of section 99, O. S. 1931, apply regardless of whether the guardian's deed is valid, void, or voidable.
2. Same--Recording of Deed Sufficient to Set Statute in Operation Against Ward.
The recording of a deed to real property made by a guardian in pursuance of a sale upon an order of a court directing such sale, is sufficient to set the statute of limitations in operation against the ward.
3. Same--Statutory Provisions Applicable to Action by Ward for Recovery of Land.
An action for the recovery of real property sold by a guardian upon an order of court directing such sale, brought by the ward, can only be commenced within five years after the date of the recording of the deed made in pursuance of the sale, within three years after the disability of the ward is removed, and within three years after the termination of the guardianship.

Appeal from District Court, Seminole County; Lucius Babcock, Assigned Judge.

Action by Susanna Little against V. W. Miracle et al. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

E. I. Wakeman, for plaintiff in error.
Jess I. Miracle, S. A. Duling, Hunter L. Johnson, Floyd E. Staley, G. Earl Shaffer, and John Rogers, for defendants in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Seminole county in favor of the defendants in error, as defendants, against the plaintiff in error, as plaintiff. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

¶2 The issue herein is the title to an undivided one-fourth interest in 160 acres of land in Seminole county, Okla., which was inherited by the plaintiff, a full-blood citizen of the Creek Nation, from her mother, a full-blood citizen of the Creek Nation, to whom the land had been allotted. The action was commenced on April 11, 1928. The plaintiff was born on May 7, 1898. The guardian's deed in question was made pursuant to an order of the county court of Okfuskee county, under date of September 27, 1912. It was filed for record in the office of the county clerk of Seminole county on January 15, 1913. The grantee and those claiming under him have been in adverse possession of the land since that time.

¶3 The trial court found that the guardianship proceedings, including the sale, were in all respects valid and according to law. Herein the guardianship proceedings are attacked. We do not think it necessary to discuss that contention, for the cause of action of the plaintiff, if she had any, was barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, notwithstanding the provisions of section 2, ch. 115 of the Act of Congress of April 12, 1926 (44 Stat. 239), generally known as the Hastings-Harreld Act. Such also, Dodson v. Middleton, 38 Okla. 763, 135 P. 368; Group v. Jones, 44 Okla. 344, 144 P. 377; King v. Mitchell, 69 Okla. 207, 171 P. 725; Chupco v. Chapman, 76 Okla. 201, 170 P. 259; Glory v. Bagby, 79 Okla. 155, 188 P. 881; Wray v. Howard. 79 Okla. 223, 192 P. 584; Mehard v. Little, 81 Okla. 1, 196 P. 536; Minnehart v. Littlefield, 94 Okla. 249, 222 P. 253; Sandlin v. Barker, 95 Okla. 113, 218 P. 519; Walker v. Hatcher, 109 Okla. 283, 231 P. 88; Dierks v. Isaac, 114 Okla. 158, 244 P. 750; Anicker v. Harrison, 125 Okla. 21, 256 P. 39; Tiger v. Brown. 130 Okla. 83, 265 P. 124; Stolfa v. Gaines, 140 Okla. 292, 283 P. 563; Bearhead v. American Inv. Co. 157 Okla. 84, 10 P.2d 1086; Washington v. Bartlett, 158 Okla. 218, 13 P.2d 132; Givens v. Jones, 158 Okla. 124, 12 P.2d 892; Deere v. Gypsy Oil Co., 160 Okla. 237. 15 P.2d 1086, and Harris v. Bell, 254 U.S. 103, 65 L. Ed. 159, 41 S. Ct. 49.

¶4 The judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.