Title: PAN MUTUAL ROYALTIES v. STATE
Citation: 1960 OK 22, 352 P.2d 374
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 1960

PAN MUTUAL ROYALTIES v. STATE Annotate this Case PAN MUTUAL ROYALTIES v. STATE 1960 OK 22 352 P.2d 374 Case Number: 38545 Decided: 02/02/1960 Supreme Court of Oklahoma PAN MUTUAL ROYALTIES, A TRUST ESTATE, AND PAN MUTUAL ROYALTIES, INC., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAND OFFICE OF SAID STATE, DEFENDANT 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 thesubject-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. Prior to proceedings to forfeit certificate of purchase, defendants, acquired mineral interests in land based on mineral conveyance by holder of certificate of purchase. Defendants' mineral conveyances were filed of record in office of county clerk but not in office of said Commissioners prior to conclusion of forfeiture proceedings. Defendants were not served with notice in said proceedings. Trial court held that forfeiture proceedings served to divest defendants of their asserted interest in the minerals and entered judgment in favor of Commissioners. Defendants appeal. Wayne W. Bayless, Chas. L. Orr, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error. R.H. Dunn, N.A. Gibson, Francis Stewart, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. ¶1 In this action the defendant in error, The State of Oklahoma ex rel. The Commissioners of the Land Office, seeks to establish the State's asserted fee simple title to the NW/4 and the SE/4 of Sec. 13, T. 27N, R. 25W, Harper County, Oklahoma, as to adverse claims of the plaintiffs in error based upon a mineral conveyance made by the Certificate of Purchase-holder, Lenore Williams, prior to her 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 on May 18, 1931. The mineral conveyances were filed of record in the Office of the County Clerk of Harper County after the Certificate of Purchase was recorded in said office but prior to the institution of said proceedings. The mineral conveyances were not 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 the 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.