Court Opinion

ID: 9538725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:40:42.629201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:07.296377
License: Public Domain

DAVISON, J.
(dissenting). The facts show J. C. Carlton was not an Indian trader and that he had never before had a business transaction with an Indian. He had been a country school teacher for many years.
That at the time J. C. Carlton originally purchased the land in question he thought Irene Graham to be the sole and only heir of Simon Graham. He had the title examined by an excellent lawyer who approved the title, the examination having been based on the proof of heirship on file with the Secretary of the Indian Agency at Muskogee which showed Irene Graham to be the sole and only heir of Simon Graham, the deceased allottee. He purchased the land in good faith thinking he had fee-simple title and thereafter in good faith made lasting and valuable improvements thereon. Thereafter, when he purchased the alleged interest from Mattie Graham, now McFarland, he, in good faith, thought she never had had an interest in the land, but made the purchase for the purpose of clearing up any defect in his title.
The trial court found that “intervener and her husband sold her remaining equity, if any, to plaintiff without the exercise by him of any duress, coercion, unlawful or undue influence, or fraud, the court finds the consideration in this case to be adequate to support inter-vener’s deed to plaintiff.”
I am of the opinion that this finding of the trial court is not against the clear weight of the evidence.
Assuming that the consideration paid for the deed was inadequate, yet that alone would not be sufficient cause for a reversal of the case. Mere inadequacy of consideration, standing alone, is not sufficient to set aside a deed. Pryer et al. v. Mahoney, 179 Okla. 426, 65 P. 2d 974; Watashe v. Tiger, et al., 88 Okla. 77, 211 P. 415; Campbell v. Newman, 51 Okla. 122, 151 P. 602.
For the reasons above stated, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. I therefore respectfully dissent.