SHRODER v. STATE

SHRODER v. STATE
1960 OK 21
352 P.2d 372
Case Number: 38554
Decided: 02/02/1960
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

WILLARD SHRODER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAND OFFICE OF SAID STATE, AND SHELL OIL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

Syllabus

¶0 1. A statute which is enacted for the primary purpose of dealing with particular subjects, and which prescribes by specific designation the terms and conditions of that particular subject-matter, supersedes a general statute which does not specifically refer to the particular subject-matter, but does contain language broad enough to cover the subject-matter if the specific statute were not in existence.
2. As to the Commissioners of the Land Office, 'record owner(s)' within the purview of Ch. 57, Secs. 1 and 2, S.L.1923-24, are those claiming an interest in land held under a certificate of purchase who have filed conveyances evidencing their interest in the Office of said Commissioners and not those who have filed their conveyances with the county clerk.
3. Forfeiture proceedings based upon notice to those who appear as 'the record owner, or lien holder of record' in the Office of the Commissioners of the Land Office serve to divest all who do not so appear by said records of any interest in the property involved in the forfeiture proceedings.
4. A statute requiring service of notice in a proceeding to forfeit a certificate of purchase only on those who appear as owning an interest in land sold under a certificate of purchase from the records of the Office of the Commissioners of the Land Office does not violate the due process clause of Art. XIV of the Federal Constitution or Art. II, Sec. 7 of the Okla.Const.

Appeal from the District Court of Harper County; C.R. Board, Judge.
Action by Commissioners of Land Office to quiet title to public lands sold under a certificate of purchase which had been forfeited. Subsequent to proceeding to forfeit certificate of purchase, defendant acquired interest in minerals based on mineral conveyances made by certificate holder prior to forfeiture proceeding. Mineral conveyances made prior to forfeiture proceeding were filed of record in office of county clerk but not in office of Commissioners. Alleged owners of minerals at time of forfeiture proceedings were not served with notice in said proceedings. Trial court held that forfeiture proceedings served to divest owners of minerals of their interest and entered judgment in favor of Commissioners. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Byron Boone and James O. Ellison, Tulsa, and Savage, Gibson, Benefield & Shelton, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
R.H. Dunn, N.A. Gibson and Francis Stewart, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 In this action the defendants in error, the State of Oklahoma ex rel. the Commissioners of the Land Office and Shell Oil Company, a corporation, seek to establish their asserted fee simple title to the E/2 of Sec. 36, T. 28N, R. 25W, Harper County, Oklahoma, as to adverse claims of the plaintiff in error based upon a mineral conveyance made by the certificate of purchaser-holder, Earl McAtee, prior to his certificate being forfeited by proceeding conducted by said Commissioners in 1935 and 1936. The certificate of purchase was filed of record in the office of the county clerk March 22, 1929. The mineral conveyance upon which plaintiff in error bases his title was filed of record in the office of the County Clerk of Harper County, Oklahoma, after the certificate of purchase was recorded but prior to the institution of said proceedings. The mineral conveyance to plaintiff in error is under date of October 6, 1942. None of the mineral conveyances were filed in the office of the Commissioners of the Land Office. No notice was given in the forfeiture proceedings to those who had recorded their mineral conveyances with the county clerk.

¶2 The issues in this case are the same as those considered and determined in No. 38,379, Equitable Royalty Corporation v. State of Oklahoma, Okl., 352 P.2d 365. Our opinion in No. 38,379 is determinative of issues presented by this appeal and is therefore adopted as the opinion in this case.

¶3 Affirmed.

¶4 DAVISON, C.J., WILLIAMS, V.C.J., and WELCH, JOHNSON, BLACKBIRD, JACKSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.