bona fide claim in Oklahoma

1978We agree with the circuit court in Puerto Rico Telephone Company v. FCC, 553 F.2d 694 (1st Cir. 1977), which stated, “We think that the clear import of the Communications Act, as it has been construed by the FCC and by the courts for many years, is that no matter how frequently or infrequently a subscriber places interstate calls, he is entitled to have the conditions placed on access to the interstate telephone system measured against federal standards of reasonableness under § 201 (of the Communications Act).” As stated by the FCC order and as suggested by witnesses for Southern, the capabil

1967From the Reardon case, supra, the rule is stated as follows: “The estate necessary to establish venue for appointment of administrator does not necessarily have to consist of tangible property, but it is sufficient that there exist property rights of a substantial nature, arising and enforcible in the jurisdiction.” The rule, as announced in the Rock Island Improvement case, supra, is as follows: “[T]he assets relied on as furnishing a basis for local administration should be of a tangible nature, but a mere claim or right of action arising or existing and enforcible within the jurisdiction is

1959In the case of James v. Union Graded School District No. 2 of Muskogee County, 201 Okl. 573 , 207 P.2d 241, 242 , we held: “In the absence of a license, which precludes the possibility of a claim of adverse possession, or the execution of an agreement in accordance with law granting the right of occupancy for a fixed period, the placing of a school building and other necessary appendages on the land of another, building a fence around the same, and conducting school and social functions thereon is evidence of adverse and hostile possession under which title may be claimed after fifteen (15) ye

1959In the case of James v. Union Graded School District No. 2 of Muskogee County, 201 Okl. 573 , 207 P.2d 241, 242 , we held: “In the absence of a license, which precludes the possibility of a claim of adverse possession, or the execution of an agreement in accordance with law granting the right of occupancy for a fixed period, the placing of a school building and other necessary appendages on the land of another, building a fence around the same, and conducting school and social functions thereon is evidence of adverse and hostile possession under which title may be claimed after fifteen (15) ye

1959Am.Law Inst.Restatement of the Law of Property, draft No. 1; introduction.” In the case of McMann v. McMann, 123 Okl. 26 , 252 P. 1093 , we held: “Where an occupant of land under a judgment and decree in a divorce action holds the adverse possession of the same continuously for more than 15 years, under a bona fide claim of ownership, it will constitute a bar to an action for the recovery thereof by any one not under disability, and give a complete title to the occupant by prescription, although the judgment and decree is absolutely void.” In view of the above authorities under the facts here

1959Am.Law Inst.Restatement of the Law of Property, draft No. 1; introduction.” In the case of McMann v. McMann, 123 Okl. 26 , 252 P. 1093 , we held: “Where an occupant of land under a judgment and decree in a divorce action holds the adverse possession of the same continuously for more than 15 years, under a bona fide claim of ownership, it will constitute a bar to an action for the recovery thereof by any one not under disability, and give a complete title to the occupant by prescription, although the judgment and decree is absolutely void.” In view of the above authorities under the facts here

1959In the case of James v. Union Graded School District No. 2 of Muskogee County, 201 Okl. 573 , 207 P.2d 241, 242 , we held: “In the absence of a license, which precludes the possibility of a claim of adverse possession, or the execution of an agreement in accordance with law granting the right of occupancy for a fixed period, the placing of a school building and other necessary appendages on the land of another, building a fence around the same, and conducting school and social functions thereon is evidence of adverse and hostile possession under which title may be claimed after fifteen (15) ye

1959In the case of James v. Union Graded School District No. 2 of Muskogee County, 201 Okl. 573 , 207 P.2d 241, 242 , we held: “In the absence of a license, which precludes the possibility of a claim of adverse possession, or the execution of an agreement in accordance with law granting the right of occupancy for a fixed period, the placing of a school building and other necessary appendages on the land of another, building a fence around the same, and conducting school and social functions thereon is evidence of adverse and hostile possession under which title may be claimed after fifteen (15) ye

1953In Hoff v. Hoff, 106 Kan. 542 , 189 P. 613 , the Kansas court states the rule as follows: “Where there are no actual creditors to be defrauded, and there is only a mental purpose to hinder imaginary creditors, equity will relieve against transfers of property without consideration.” In Hickey et al. v. Ross, 197 Okla. 543 , 172 P. 2d 771 , we held that an actual creditor must, in 'fact, exist to be a fraudulent conveyance.

1953In Hoff v. Hoff, 106 Kan. 542 , 189 P. 613 , the Kansas court states the rule as follows: “Where there are no actual creditors to be defrauded, and there is only a mental purpose to hinder imaginary creditors, equity will relieve against transfers of property without consideration.” In Hickey et al. v. Ross, 197 Okla. 543 , 172 P. 2d 771 , we held that an actual creditor must, in 'fact, exist to be a fraudulent conveyance.

1953In Hoff v. Hoff, 106 Kan. 542 , 189 P. 613 , the Kansas court states the rule as follows: “Where there are no actual creditors to be defrauded, and there is only a mental purpose to hinder imaginary creditors, equity will relieve against transfers of property without consideration.” In Hickey et al. v. Ross, 197 Okla. 543 , 172 P. 2d 771 , we held that an actual creditor must, in 'fact, exist to be a fraudulent conveyance.

1953In Hoff v. Hoff, 106 Kan. 542 , 189 P. 613 , the Kansas court states the rule as follows: “Where there are no actual creditors to be defrauded, and there is only a mental purpose to hinder imaginary creditors, equity will relieve against transfers of property without consideration.” In Hickey et al. v. Ross, 197 Okla. 543 , 172 P. 2d 771 , we held that an actual creditor must, in 'fact, exist to be a fraudulent conveyance.

1953In Smith v. Felkel, 91 Okla. 184 , 217 P. 196 , we held that where one person conveyed land to another for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of an alleged creditor, and where thereafter the claim was settled and was not a bona fide claim, equity would permit the grantor to recover the land.

1953In Smith v. Felkel, 91 Okla. 184 , 217 P. 196 , we held that where one person conveyed land to another for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of an alleged creditor, and where thereafter the claim was settled and was not a bona fide claim, equity would permit the grantor to recover the land.

1952Moreover, while this instruction did not xnit the burden on the defendant to prove his possession, he was at liberty by way of defense to put in evidence any fact to disprove his felonious intent, such as a bona fide claim of right. 52 C.J.S., Larceny, § 121, page 944, Notes 30, 31, 32, 34; People v. Morley, 89 Cal. App. 451 , 265 P. 276 .

1952Moreover, while this instruction did not xnit the burden on the defendant to prove his possession, he was at liberty by way of defense to put in evidence any fact to disprove his felonious intent, such as a bona fide claim of right. 52 C.J.S., Larceny, § 121, page 944, Notes 30, 31, 32, 34; People v. Morley, 89 Cal. App. 451 , 265 P. 276 .

1933Where defendant acts in pursuance of a bona fide claim which he is asserting honestly, although without right, as eventually appears from an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, such defendant will not be penalized in damages for asserting such bona fide claim in good faith. * * *” In the more recent case of New England Oil & Pipe Line Co. v. Rogers, 154 Okla. 285 , 7 P. (2d) 638 , at page 290 of Okla.

1933Where defendant acts in pursuance of a bona fide claim which he is asserting honestly, although without right, as eventually appears from an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, such defendant will not be penalized in damages for asserting such bona fide claim in good faith. * * *” In the more recent case of New England Oil & Pipe Line Co. v. Rogers, 154 Okla. 285 , 7 P. (2d) 638 , at page 290 of Okla.

1923Wilson v. Dubois (Minn.) 29 N. W. 68 ; Burkett v. Griffith (Cal.) 27 Pac. 527 ; 4 Sutherland on Damages, section 1223: Stevenson v. Love, 106 Fed. 466 ; Pollard v. Lyon, 23 L.

1923If what the defendant did was in pursuance of a bona fide claim which he was asserting honestly, and especially if he was acting under the advice of counsel, though without rigiht, he will not be liable.” (Stark v. Chitwood, 5 Kan. 141 , at pages 144-5.) See, also.

1923Wilson v. Dubois (Minn.) 29 N. W. 68 ; Burkett v. Griffith (Cal.) 27 Pac. 527 ; 4 Sutherland on Damages, section 1223: Stevenson v. Love, 106 Fed. 466 ; Pollard v. Lyon, 23 L.

1923Wilson v. Dubois (Minn.) 29 N. W. 68 ; Burkett v. Griffith (Cal.) 27 Pac. 527 ; 4 Sutherland on Damages, section 1223: Stevenson v. Love, 106 Fed. 466 ; Pollard v. Lyon, 23 L.

1919Co., supra. In Beach v. Nordman, 90 Ark. 59 , 117 S. W. 785 , it is said: “The grantee, in an action for breach of a covenant of warranty, can recover costs and necessary expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in a bona fide defense *288 or assertion of .his title, though there was no express agreement by the grantor, in addition to his covenant to pay such' expenses.” To the same effect, see Brawley v. Copelin, supra. The court committed no error in refusing instructions tendered by defendant, as those to which he was entitled were covered by the instructions' the court gave

1919Co., supra. In Beach v. Nordman, 90 Ark. 59 , 117 S. W. 785 , it is said: “The grantee, in an action for breach of a covenant of warranty, can recover costs and necessary expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in a bona fide defense *288 or assertion of .his title, though there was no express agreement by the grantor, in addition to his covenant to pay such' expenses.” To the same effect, see Brawley v. Copelin, supra. The court committed no error in refusing instructions tendered by defendant, as those to which he was entitled were covered by the instructions' the court gave

1915We find it stated in 34 Cyc. 1567, as follows: *449 “Thus it is very generally held'that if the defendant seizes the property without a bona fide claim or right, in bad faith, or under circumstances of aggravation or outrage, this would furnish a case for the exercise of the discretion of the jury in the allowance of exemplary or punitive damages, as in the case of a willful or malicious trespass ; and, on the other hand, plaintiff is entitled to damages of this character where there have been peculiar circumstances of outrage, oppression, and wrong in the taking or detention of the property.”

1912Indeed, the very case of City of Kingfisher v. Altizer, 13 Okla. 121 , 74 Pac. 107 , relied on by the plaintiff, recognizes the principle we announce, as does also the case of Union Pacific R.

1912Indeed, the very case of City of Kingfisher v. Altizer, 13 Okla. 121 , 74 Pac. 107 , relied on by the plaintiff, recognizes the principle we announce, as does also the case of Union Pacific R.