Page images

It is further assigned that the conclusions the $800 payment. We find no inconsistency of law and judgment as made by the court in the findings. When the subsequent exdo not follow from the findings, and also amination of the abstract disclosed that that the findings are inconsistent with each Perry was not the owner, it merely disclosother. The court found that Pettit & Son, ed what appellants already knew, and what on January 20, 1900, gave to appellants a they knew when tliey completed their conwritten receipt for $100, as a payment upon tract of purchase of January 220. The disthe purchase price; the writing also contain closures of the abstract therefore furnished ing other data concerning the terms of the no excuse for not making the subsequent parhilse'. 11 stated the aggregate purchase payments, since the court found that the price as $0,600. Eight hundred dollars was to owner was at all times ready, able, and los paid in cash, and the balance in deferred willing to convey. Time having been made payments. An abstract of title was to be fur the essence of the contract, and it having nished, and five days allowed for its examina been provided that payments made should tion. It was also stated that if the title was be forfeited in default of making other paytot good, and could not be made good, then ments, it follows that appellants are not enilie agreement should be void; but if found to titled to recover the payment made, and that he good, and not accepted by the purchaser, the judgment follows from the court's findthe crnest money should be forfeited. Time ings. was made the essence of the agreement, and The judgment is affirmed. it was also stated that it was made subje:t to the owner's approval. It was also found FULLERTON, ROOT, and CROW, JJ., that the property was listed for sale with concur. l'ettit & Sou by the defendant Perry. Tlie for roing was found with reference to what

(18 Okl. 555) took place on January 20th, and it was fur

NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. ther found that on January 22d said Perry

JONES. contracted to sell the property to the appellants. by a written contract of sale execut

(Supreme Court of Oklahoma, June 23, 1907.) (1 and delivereil on that date; that the fur

1. CHATTEL MORTGAGES-LIEN-RECORDING. ther sum of $700 was then paid, completing valid recorded mortgage removes the chattels

Where the owner of chattels covered by a the first payment of $800. The terms of sale without the knowledge or consent of the mortwere set forth in the contract as in the mem gagee to another county, it is not necessary for orandum of January 20th. The lots were

the mortgagee, in order to preserve the lien, to

file the mortgage or a copy thereof for registry owned by one William Pigott, at all times

in the county to which the property is removed. mentioned, and it was found that he was at Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. all times realy, willing, and able to convey; vol. 9, Chattel Mortgages, $ 100.] that on January 15th Pigott authorized M. 2. SAME-PRIORITIES-AGISTER'S LIEX. B. Crane & Co. to sell the property, which

The lien of a prior valid recorded chattel authorization continued until after the coul

mortgage will take precedence over the subse

quently acquired lien of a livery stable keeper mencement of this action; that prior to the

or agister upon animals placed in his charge, execution of the said contract from Perry to unless such animals were delivered to such lienappellants, M. B. Crane & Co. executed their holder to be kept and cared for by him with

the consent of the mortgager. contract of sale to l'erry, and the same was

[Ed. Yote.-For cases in joint, see Cent. Dig. ratitiel by Pigott; that at the time the $100

vol. 9, Chattel Mortgages, $ 235.] was paid and the memorandum receipt gir

3. COXSTITUTIOXAL LAW-VESTED RIGHTS en, on January 20th the appellants under

OBLIGATION OF COXTRACTS. stood, and it was so representeil, that Perry An act of the Legislature, which postpones was the owner; but that before the execution

an existing valid mortgage lien and makes a

subsequently created lien superior to the mortof the contract of January 220, when the fur

gage lien, is a law impairing rested property ther payment of $700 was made, appellants rights and impairing the obligations of a conwere apprised that l'erry had only a con tract, and is void for conflict with the Constitu

tion of the United States. tract to purchase from the owner. Appel

[Ed. Yote-For cases in point, sre Cent. Dig. lants, liaving failed to make subsequent pay

rol. 10, Constitutional Law, 88 151, 49-1.) ments, claimed that the examination of the

(Syllabus by the Court.) abstract disclosed that Perry was not the owner, that the title was not therefore good, Error from District ('ourt, Pawnee Counand that 10:llants were for that reason re ty: before Justice Bavari T. IIainer. leased from further obligations and entitled Action by the National Bank of Commerce to a return of the $800 already paid. The against Ben Jones. Judgment for defendant, Salle contention is inade here. But it will and plaintiff brings error. Reversed. le sewn that the court found that appellants

Wrightsman & Fulton and James B. Diggs, knew when they paid the $700 tliit l'erry

for plaintiff in error. was not the owner, and that he had only a (onírict of sale Whatever may have been BCRFORD, C. J. One I. S. Jones was a tlieir undersanding in the first instance, resident of Payne county, Okl., and there they learned the facts before they completed owned and kept one gray horse, valued at

[ocr errors]

$60. On December 6, 1900, he executed to has removed. The object in requiring a recthe National Bank of Commerce at Still ord of the mortgage is to give publicity to water a chattel mortgage upon said horse to it, and to provide a source of information secure the payment of the sum of $59.50, due common to all persons, so that they may September 6, 1901, and bearing 12 per cent. determine, with some degree of facility, coninterest after maturity. This mortgage was venience, and certainty, the question of title filed for record in the office of the register to the property whenever they may be interof deeds of Payne county on the same day it ested to know it, while at the same time was executed. On October 6, 1901, the horse it is not among the purposes of the recordwas left in the possession of the defendant ing acts to subject a bona fide mortgagee to Ben Jones, at Ralston, in Pawnee county, the inconvenience of the constant vigilance Okl., without the knowledge or consent of and ceaseless watching which would be reqthe mortgagee. Ben Jones was the keeper of uisite to guard and secure his interests if · a feed barn, and kept and fed the horse until he were obliged to record his mortgage in the commencement of this action, at which every town into which the mortgagor might time there was due him for feed and care of see fit to remove with the property. If he the horse, as found by the court, the sum of were required to do this, his security would $25. The mortgagee demanded possession of be well-nigh worthless ; for before he could the horse in December, 1901, and Jones re do this a creditor of the mortgagor might fused to deliver possession until the feed bill seize the property by process of law or the was paid. The mortgagee refused to pay mortgagor himself might pass the title to it this bill, and on December 10, 1901, began by way of sale to an innocent purchaser." this action in replevin before the probate

And this rule is sustained by abundant aucourt of Pawnee county. The horse was tak

thority. See, also, 6 Cyc. 1088, 1089, and auen on the writ of replevin and delivered to

thorities there cited. the plaintiff, who retains possession. On the The next contention is that the lien for trial in the probate court it was held that feeding and caring for the horse is superior the mortgagee could not recover, and the to that of the mortgage. The weight of auhorse was ordered returned to the defendant. thority is to the effect that a lien for feeding Appeal was taken to the district court of and caring for domestic animals is not suPawnee county, and the cause there tried perior to the lien created by a prior valid to the court, and judgment rendered sustain

recorded mortgage. 1 Jones on Liens, $ 691. ing the lien of the defendant for feed and It is also stated in 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. (20 Care for the sum of $25, which the plaintiff Ed.) p. 438: “It is held by the overwhelmwas ordered to pay, or, on default in pay ing weight of authority that the lien of a ment, to return the horse. This judgment prior valid recorded chattel mortgage will was rendered upon the express holding by take precedence over the subsequently acthe trial court that the lien for feed and quired lien of a livery stable keeper or agistcare was superior to the mortgage lien. The er upon animals placed in his charge, unbank, the mortgagee, brings the case here for less such animals were delivered to the livery review, and the sole question for determina stable keeper or agister to be kept and cared tion is: Which is the superior lien, that of for by him with the consent of the mortthe mortgage to the bank, or that for feed gagee." The Supreme Court of Kansas has and care clained by the liveryman?

adopted a rule to the contrary in a number It is said in the brief that the trial cour of cases, but the authorities generally are held that the bank had lost its lien by a not in accord with the decisions of that court. failure to have the mortgage filed for record But it is said that our statute changes the in the office of the register of deeds of Pawn general rule, and that in this case the mortee county after the horse was removed from gage lien must be held inferior to the lien Payne county. Such is not the law. When of the agister. This cannot be. The statthe owner of the horse, who resided and kept ute referred to was adopted February 28, the horse in Payne county, executed a mort 1901, almost three months after the mortgage gage upon the horse, and it was duly filed had become a valid lien and the rights of for record in such county, the mortgage lien the mortgagee completely vested. This statbecame effective against all persons who sub ute (chapter 3, p. 43, Sess. Law's 1901) is sequently dealt with the properly, and a re as follows: moral of the property by the mortgagor “Section 1. That any person or persons without the consent or connivance of the employed in feeding, grazing or herding any mortgagee would not affect the validity of domestic animals, whether in pasture or the mortgage lien. It is said in Jones on otherwise, shall for the amount due for such Chattel Mortgages, $ 269: “The removal of feeding, grazing or herding have a lien on a mortgagor from the town or county in said animals." which he resided when the mortgage was exe “Sec. 3. All liens not to exceed in the agcuteci, and where it was duly recorded, and gregate twenty-five per cent. of the value of the taking of the mortgaged property with such animals against any domestic animal him, does not invalidate the record of the or animals for labor, grazing, herding or mortgage, or necessitate the recording of feeding, or for corn, feed, forage or hay, it again in the town or county to which he furnished the owner of such domestic animals

as herein provided and actually used for such to the Constitution of the United States and

the principles of the Declaration of Independpurpose, shall be prior to all other liens there

ence, that no distinction shall be made on acon, and no recital or stipulation in any mort

count of race or color, and that the convention gage or other incumbrance on any cattle so shall by ordinance irrevocable accept all the fed shall be held to supersede or vitiate-the terms and conditions in the enabling act. lien here provided for.”


The power vested in the convention to The Constitution of the United States,

form a state government clearly implies the which is the supreme and paraniount law of

power to create and define all the counties withthe land and controlling upon all bodies, ei- | in the limits of the proposed state, the only ther legislative or judicial, within the terri

limitation upon the convention in this respect

being that the Osage Indian Reservation shall tories, in article 1, § 10, provides: "No state

remain a separate county until the lands thereshall pass any law impairing the obligation of

in are allotted in severalty, and until changed contracts.” And by the provisions of the by the Legislature of the state. organic act this provision of the Constitution,


A "county" is one of the territorial divias well as all others not locally inapplicable,

sions of the state created for public and politiis put in force in this territory. Organic

cal purposes connected with the administration Act St. 1890, § 28. An act of the Legislature of the state government. which seeks to impair the obligation of a 6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – STATES - STATE

OFFICERS. contract, or to impair or destroy vested prop

Officers for a full state government, under erty rights, is unconstitutional and void.

the terms of the enabling act, include not only Toledo Railroad Co. v. Hamilton, 134 U. S. state officers whose powers and duties are co296, 10 Sup. Ct. 546, 33 L. Ed. 905; Crowther extensive with the limits of the state, but in

cludes all the officers provided for in the Conv. Fidelity Ins. Co., 85 Fed. 43, 29 C. C. A. 1;

stitution, from the highest to the lowest, whose Yeatman v. King, 2 N. D. 428, 51 N. W. 721, duties are in any manner connected with the 33 Am. St. Rep. 797 ; Kilpatrick v. Kansas administration of the state government. City, etc., R. R. Co., 41 Am. St. Rep. 758, note; 7. SAME-CONSTITUTION-SUBMISSION TO PEO

PLE. Giles v. Stanton, 85 Tex. 620; 1 Jones on

Congress, by the express terms of the enLiens, $ 701. These authorities lay down the abling act, conferred the power and authority doctrine that a mortgage lien constitutes a upon the convention to pass appropriate ordivested property right, and after it has at nances for submitting the Constitution to the

people for ratification or rejection at an electached the Legislature has no power to create

tion to be held at a time fixed in said ordinance. a lien superior to the vested interest, or to

8. SAME-ORDINANCES. provide that such vested lien shall be made An ordinance, as used in this act, means a inferior to a lien subsequently created; and

law which is essential to carrying into effect we think this rule sound, and in harmony

merely the objects for which the convention

was created. Such an ordinance, when once with reason and justice.

adopted by the convention, has the force and efThe judgment of the district court is re fect of law. versed, at the costs of defendant in error, 9. SAME-INJUNCTION-JURISDICTION Conwith directions to vacate and set aside the


A court of equity has no power or jurisdicjudgment in favor of the defendant and to

tion to restrain or enjoin the constitutional enter judgment for the plaintiff that it was convention, its officers or delegates, from exercisentitled to the possession of the horse at the ing any of the rights, powers, and obligations time it commenced its action and for its

confided to it by Congress or the people; nor

can the powers of the court be invoked to recosts. All the Justices concur, except HAIN strain or enjoin the submission of the ConstituER, J., who tried the case below, not sitting. tion, or any proposition contained therein, to a

vote of the people in advance of its adoption and ratification by the people and its approval

by the President of the United States, on the (18 Okl. 561)

ground that the proposed Constitution, or any FRANTZ et al. V. AUTRY.

of its provisions, is unconstitutional, or that the (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. June 25, 1907.)

convention acted in excess of its lawful powers.



The Constitution of the United States guarA "constitution" is the written instrument

anties to every state a republican form of govby which the fundamental powers of the govern

ernment, and the power to determine whether ment are established, limited, and defined, and

the Constitution is republican in form is priby which those powers are distributed among

marily a legislative power, and resides in Conthe several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic.

But this power was delegated by Con

gress to the President of the United States, and 2. SAME-CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

such question is not subject to judicial cogniThe constitutional convention is vested with zance. the power and charged with the duty and re Irwin, J., dissenting, and Burwell, J., dissentsponsibility of forming a Constitution and state ing in part. government, and in the performance of such duties it exercises legislative powers and functions.

(Syllabus by the Court.) El. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. Error from District Court, Woods County ; vol. 10, Constitutional Law, § 1.)

before Justice John L. Pancoast. 3. SAME-POWERS.

Action by G. E. Autry agaiust Frank Frantz, The convention has, and can exercise, plenary powers, subject to the limitations and re

Governor of Oklahoma, and others. Judgstrictions that the Constitution shall be repub

ment for plaintiff, and defendants bring erlican in form, that it shall not be repugnant ror. Reversed and dismissed.

91 P.-13

On June 16, 1906, the Congress of the Unit vide or designate the townships of their reed States passed an act entitled "An act to Sective counties into election precincts and enable the people of Oklahoma and of the In est: Wish the boundaries of the same, and dian Territory to form a Constitution and shall designate a polling place in each prestate government and he admitted into the cinct, and appoint all necessary inspectors Union on an equal footing with the original of election in the several precincts, whose states," etc. Act June 10, 1906, c. 3:333, 34 duties shall be the same as inspectors of ele, Stat. 207. Under and in conforinity with the tion under the laws of the territory of Okprovisions of this act. members of the con lahoma, and shall also perform all other dustitutional convention were elected, and the ties required to be done or performeel lig the convention was duly organized; W. II. Mur boards of county commissioners pertaining to ray being elected its president, and John elections under the laws of the territory of M. Young its secretary. Thereupon the con Oklahoma for elections therein, and shall vention proceeded to the forming of a Con. perform all other duties or acts necessary to stitution and state government, and an ordi the conduct of said elections." nance for the submission of the same to the This action was commenced in the district qualified voters of the proposed state of Ok court of Woods county by G. E. Autry, a taxlahoma for ratification or rejection, August payer and member of the board of county ti, 1907, being the date fixed by said ordi commissioners of said county, against Frak nance for the holdirg of such election, and Frantz, Governor of Oklahoma, and W. II. which ordinance also provided for the election Murray, president of the constitutional conof all state, district, county, and township offi vention, John M. Young, secretary ther-of. cers, including the members of the Legisla and the other defendants as the saill desisture and five Representatives to Congress. nated county commissioners and county clerks It was also provided that within 20 days aft of the counties of Alfalfa and Jajor, to ener the adoption of such Constitution and or join the said Frank Frantz, W'. II. Murr:ly, dinance by the constitutional convention, and John M. Young from issuing or publishwhich was done on April 22, 1907, the Gore ing any proclamation in which said probalernor of Oklahoma should issue a proclama mation it is proposed to submit to the electtion calling an election for the 6th day of ors of the proposed state of Oklahoma, either August, 1907, in the manner prescribed by as a part of the proposed Constitution or as said ordinance; and that, if the Governor a separate ordinance, any clause or provishould fail or neglect to call such election, sion dividing, or purporting to divide, Woods then the president of the constitutional con county, or changing or in any wise interfervention was authorized to issue such proc ing with any township or precinct therein, lamation. Woods and Woodward counties and to enjoin and restrain the said C. I. are organized and existing counties of the Overstreet, C. II. Chowning, C. M. Delzell, M. territory of Oklahoma, and have been such R. Mansfield, Charles Bowman, J. C. Major, since the opening of the Cherokee Outlet to I. J. Corwin, and Charles B. Powell froin in settlement in 1893; each of said counties any wise interfering with or usurping, or athaving a full complement of county, town tempting to usurp, any of the duties of the ship, and city officers. It is proposed by the county commissioners or county clerk, or any constitutional convention, by one of the pro or either of them, of the county of Woods, in visions of the Constitution, to divide the ter or about the said proposed election or any of ritory which has heretofore composed Woods the preparations therefor, at or in any part (ounty into three parts: a portion of the of the territory of the county of Woods as eastern part of said county being designated now described and existing, and from in any and established as Alfalfa county, a portion wise acting, or attempting to act, in any de of the southern part as Major county, and pacity or to any extent in any election to he the remainder of said county of Woods, to held in the said pretended counties of Alfalgether with several congressional townships fa and Major, or either of them. In the ahtaken from Woodward county, is designated sence of the district judge from the county, as Woods county. This action of the con application was presented to the probate vention provides for the establishment of judge of Woods county, and a temporary ortwo entirely new counties, to wit, Alfalfa der of injunction was granted as prayell for and Major, which do not, at the present time, in the plaintiff's petition. Defendants in the exist as counties in the territory of Oklaho (ourt below, appellants here, interposed a ma. By the terms and provisions of the demurrer to the petition, for and upon the election ordinance, three persons are named grounds that the plaintiff had no legal caand appointed as county commissioners, and į pacity to sue; that the court had no jurisone person as county clerk, for each of said diction of the subject-matter of the action ; Mfalfa and Jajor counties. The counties and that the petition did not state facts sultiare divided into municipal townships and (ient to constitute a ause of action. At the commissioners' districts, to conform to such sime time it motion to dissolve the tempodivisions in the other counties of Oklahomil. rary injunction was filed, for the reasons ind it is further provided in said ordinance and upon the grounds above stated, and in that: “Said county commissioners sh:11 on : addition thereto alleving that the defendants or before the Sth day of June, A. D. 1907, di and each of them are only attempting to per.

form those acts and duties legally imposed to which the defendants, and each of them, upon them by the ordinance of the constitu duly excepted. It is therefore by the court tional convention, and that the convention considered, ordered, and adjudged that the organized under the laws of Congress has le- į demurrers of the defendants and each of zal power and authority to provide by ordi- ! them separately be, and the same are hereby, nance for tre performance of the duties which i overruled; to which the defendants, and each are imposed upon them. Upon the presenta of them, duly except. It is further considertion and hearing of the demurrer and the ed, ordered, and adjudged by the court that motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, the motions of the defendants, and each of the court overruled the same, and held: That | them separately, to vacate and set aside the the plaintiff had the legal capacity, as a citi temporary injunction heretofore granted be, zen and taxpayer, to maintain this action; and the same is by the court hereby, overthat the constitutional convention had no ruled; to which the defendants, and each of powers conferred upon it, except powers as them, separately duly except. It is further are express y conferred upon it by the en by the court considered, ordered, and adjudg. abling act, and such powers as are inciden ed that the temporary injunction heretofore tally necessary to carry into effect the objects granted herein be, and the same is hereby, ind purposes of such act, and denied the made perpetual, and that the defendants power of the convention to divide Woods Frank Frantz, W. H. Murray, and Jobn M. county, and create new counties thereof, and Young be, and they are hereby, enjoined and that the convention, in that respect, acted restrained from issuing or publishing any beyond its express or implied powers; and proclamation in or by which said proclamafurther held that the convention had no pow. tion it is proposed to submit to the electors er to provide for the election of county or of the proposed state of Oklahoma, either as township officers at the time the Constitution

a part of the proposed Constitution for said is submitted to the voters of the proposed state of Oklahoma, or as a separate ordistate of Oklahoma for their ratification or nance, any clause, provision, or proposition rejection.

dividing, or pretending to divide, Woods The defendants thereupon filed a general county, in said territory of Oklahoma, or uenial, and the cause was submitted to the changing, or pretending to change, the lines Court on an agreed statement of facts, prac. and boundaries of the said county, or maktically as above stated, and the court there ing, or purporting or pretending to make, or upon rendered the following final judgment describe or bound any new county or counin said cause: “Now, on this 8th day of ties out of any part of the present territory May, 1907, the parties to the above-entitled of the said Woods county, or changing or in (ause appeared in open court, by their re any wise interfering with the said county or spective attorneys, and said cause was pre the lines thereof or any townships or presented to the court upon the motion of the cincts therein, or any or either of the lines lefendants to dissolve, vacate, and set aside of the said township or precincts; and enthe temporary injunction herein, and upon the joining and restraining the said c. I. Overdemurrer to the plaintiff's petition. Said street, C. H. Chowning, C. M. Delzell, M. R. cause was duly argued and fully presented Mansfield, Charles Bowman, J. C. Major, I. and by the court taken under advisement J. Corwin, and Charles B. Powell from in until the 13th day of May, 1907. Thereup any wise interfering with any of the duties on, on the 13th day of May, 1907, the parties of the county commissioners or county clerk, ill appeared by their respective counsel as or any or either thereof, of the said county heretofore, and the court, being duly advised of Woods, in or about the election proposer! in the premises, finds that the said motion to be held in said county on the 6th day of to dissolve the temporary injunction should August, 1907, and from in any wise interferbe overrulel, and also that the demurrers ing with the duties of the said county compresented to the plaintiff's petition should missioners or county clerk of said county of each be overruled; to each and all of which Woods, as the same is now described and rulings the defendants, and each of them, exists, in any of the preparations of any duly excepted. Thereupon, by leave of court, kind or character for said election, and enthe defendants filed their answer herein, and joining and restraining them from acting. the plaintiff filed and presented his motion to or attempting to act. in any capacity or to strike out the second paragraph of said an any extent in any election to be upheld in swer, which motion, being duly presented, the pretended counties of Alfalfa or Major. was by the court overruled; to which the or either thereof, and that the defendants pay plaintiff excepted. Thereupon said cause the costs herein, taxed at - dollars; to was duly presented and submitted to the all and each part of which the defendants, court for final determination and judgment i and each of them, duly except. Thereupon upon the agreed statement of facts and the the defendants, and each of them separately. evidence offered, and upon such submission present their motion for a ner trial of said the court, after due consideration, finds all cause, which motion is by the court, after of the issues in favor of the plaintiff and clue consideration, overruleul: to which the ilgainst the defendants and each of them; defendants, and each ot theci, duly except.

« PreviousContinue »