Case ID: okla_34/html/0727-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "AMES, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOCKER v. HAMLIN.
    No. 1992.
    Opinion Filed June 25, 1912.
    Rehearing Denied October 10, 1912.
    (126 Pac. 1024.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Decisions of Intermediate Court— Findings. When lands of a minor have been sold, and, on report of the sale to the county court, that court finds that the purchase price is inadequate, and refuses to confirm the sale, and on appeal the district court makes a later finding, and refuses to confirm the sale, that order will not be reversed in this court when there is evidence reasonably tending to support it.
    (Syllabus by Ames, C.)
    
      Error from District Court, Le Elore County; Malcolm E. Rosser, Judge.
    
    Application of William Hamlin, a minor, by his guardian, Israel Eolsom, for the sale of certain real estate. From an order refusing to confirm the sale to J. W. Hocker, the latter brings error.
    Affirmed.
    /. W. Hocker, for plaintiff in error.'
    
      Welch & Cruthis, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

AMES, C.

The county court ordered the sale of the real estate of the defendant in error, a minor, for the purpose of providing funds for the education and maintenance of the minor, and for the best interests of his estate. The sale was made and reported to the county court, who found that the purchase price was inadequate, and refused to confirm the sale. The purchaser, the plaintiff in error, appealed to the district court, where evidence was heard relative to the value of the land, and the district court found that the purchase price was inadequate, and concurred with the county court in refusing to confirm the sale. The case is brought here, and the only error assigned is that the court erred in finding that the purchase price was inadequate.

In the matter of confirming the sale of the lands of a minor, it is manifest that the trial court should be permitted to exercise a reasonable discretion; and where there is evidence, as there is in this case, tending to support the conclusion of the trial court that the purchase price is inadequate, this court will not disturb the finding. In re Guardianship of Ephriam Billy, ante, 124 Pac. 608.

The judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.