Case Name: WHITE et al. v. NUMBER ONE BRICKMAN PROCESS REF. CO.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1925-02-17
Citations: 109 Okla. 19
Docket Number: No. 12831
Parties: WHITE et al. v. NUMBER ONE BRICKMAN PROCESS REF. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 19–20

Head Matter:
WHITE et al. v. NUMBER ONE BRICKMAN PROCESS REF. CO.
No. 12831
Opinion Filed Feb. 17. 1925.
Rehearing Denied March 17, 1925.
1. Forcible Entry and Detainer — Right of Action — Dispossession by Vendor.
One in possession of real estate under a contract of sale who has been wrongfully dispossessed by his vendor, may maintain an action in forcible entry and detainer.
2. Vendor and Purchaser — Remedy of Vendor for Default in Payments — Wrongful Dispossession.
The vendor’s remedy against one in possession who has defaulted in payments is by an equitable action in the district court. Such vendor cannot take possession of the premises over the protest of the purchaser in possession, and a possession so taken is wrongful.
(Syllabus by Lyons, C.)
Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 2,.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; George W. -Clark, Judge.
Action between J. C. White et al. and Number One Brickman Process Refining Company. From the judgment, the former appeal.
Affirmed.
A. J. Welch, for plaintiffs in error.
Wright & Gill, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
LYONS, O.
The parties will be referred to as in the court below. Plaintiff was in possession of certain real estate under a contract of sale and had made valuable improvements on the premises under said contract.
Upon an alleged default the defendant, over the protest of the plaintiff, took possession of the property while the buildings which plaintiff bad erected thereor. were locked, and were not in use. lu said buildings there was stored personal property of the plaintiff, including the books, papers, and records of said refining company.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment in an action brought for forcible entry and de-tainer and secured the restitution of the premises. An appeal was taken to the district court of Oklahoma county and upon a trial de novo the plaintiff again prevailed. The defendant appeals from the judgment.
It is clear to us that the defendant's remedy is by a suit in equity to foreclose the plaintiff's equitable interest. Bledsoe v. Peters, 98 Okla. 41, 224 Pac. 288. and eases there cited. The plaintiff in error advises us in his brief that he has filed such a proceeding in the district court and has prevailed therein. Under this state of the record, according to appellant's own statement, the case is moot and the appeal should be dismissed.
We have, however, examined the record and find that there is no error therein. Therefore th^ judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Note. — .See under (1) 26 O. J. p. 815, sec. 41. (2) 39 Cyc. p. 188S.
By the Court. It is so ordered.