land violation in Oklahoma

2014It is sufficient if the party is doing such acts thereon that indicate in an open, public and visible manner that he has the exclusive control over the land under claim of right to such exclusive possession." Farris v. Smallwood, 1951 OK 25, 10 , 204 Okla. 123 , 227 P.2d 644 (court syllabus).

2014It is sufficient if the party is doing such acts thereon that indicate in an open, public and visible manner that he has the exclusive control over the land under claim of right to such exclusive possession." Farris v. Smallwood, 1951 OK 25, 10 , 204 Okla. 123 , 227 P.2d 644 (court syllabus).

2009In this civil matter, City moved for summary judgment arguing that the no contest plea established that the land on which the violation occurred was within the city limits, Id. €16, 148 P.3d at 232.

1958The court, after announcing the rule above stated, further stated: “Some of the courts of the land have applied the rule of res ipsa loquitur to cases in which exploding beverage bottles have been involved, and have held the bottler liable in damages even though the agency causing the injury was not in his possession or control at the time of the accident. * * * But so far as we have been able to find *443 from a study of the decisions, no court has ever held that recovery may be had in such cases, under the res ipsa loqui-tur doctrine, without an affirmative showing on the part of plaintiff t

1958The court, after announcing the rule above stated, further stated: “Some of the courts of the land have applied the rule of res ipsa loquitur to cases in which exploding beverage bottles have been involved, and have held the bottler liable in damages even though the agency causing the injury was not in his possession or control at the time of the accident. * * * But so far as we have been able to find *443 from a study of the decisions, no court has ever held that recovery may be had in such cases, under the res ipsa loqui-tur doctrine, without an affirmative showing on the part of plaintiff t

1958The holding was overruled in the case of Pure Oil Co. v. Chisholm, 181 Okl. 618 , 75 P.2d 464 (see also Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Howard, 182 Okl. 101 , 77 P.2d 18 ) but only in so far as it applied to allowing salt water and refuse to flow over the surface of the land in violation of 52 O.S.1951 § 296.

1958The holding was overruled in the case of Pure Oil Co. v. Chisholm, 181 Okl. 618 , 75 P.2d 464 (see also Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Howard, 182 Okl. 101 , 77 P.2d 18 ) but only in so far as it applied to allowing salt water and refuse to flow over the surface of the land in violation of 52 O.S.1951 § 296.

1958The court, after announcing the rule above stated, further stated: “Some of the courts of the land have applied the rule of res ipsa loquitur to cases in which exploding beverage bottles have been involved, and have held the bottler liable in damages even though the agency causing the injury was not in his possession or control at the time of the accident. * * * But so far as we have been able to find *443 from a study of the decisions, no court has ever held that recovery may be had in such cases, under the res ipsa loqui-tur doctrine, without an affirmative showing on the part of plaintiff t

1958The court, after announcing the rule above stated, further stated: “Some of the courts of the land have applied the rule of res ipsa loquitur to cases in which exploding beverage bottles have been involved, and have held the bottler liable in damages even though the agency causing the injury was not in his possession or control at the time of the accident. * * * But so far as we have been able to find *443 from a study of the decisions, no court has ever held that recovery may be had in such cases, under the res ipsa loqui-tur doctrine, without an affirmative showing on the part of plaintiff t

1958The holding was overruled in the case of Pure Oil Co. v. Chisholm, 181 Okl. 618 , 75 P.2d 464 (see also Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Howard, 182 Okl. 101 , 77 P.2d 18 ) but only in so far as it applied to allowing salt water and refuse to flow over the surface of the land in violation of 52 O.S.1951 § 296.

1958The holding was overruled in the case of Pure Oil Co. v. Chisholm, 181 Okl. 618 , 75 P.2d 464 (see also Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Howard, 182 Okl. 101 , 77 P.2d 18 ) but only in so far as it applied to allowing salt water and refuse to flow over the surface of the land in violation of 52 O.S.1951 § 296.

1957“An action or defense against a resale tax deed wherein same is alleged to be void on its face is barred from prosecution, if there has been a lapse of time following recordation of the County tax deed, accompanied with possession of the real property by the holder of the County tax deed, for the period prescribed by statute as sufficient to bar an action for the recovery of the real property.” Colonial Royalties Co. v. Sitler, Okl., 298 P.2d 1060, 1061 .

1950In such circumstances the mere recordation of resale deed does not constructively oust the original owner, and actual occupancy by the county would be required to set in motion the statute of limitation, supra. In Keller v. Hawk, 19 Okla. 407 , 91 P. 778 , it is held the statute of limitations cannot be invoked in aid of a tax deed which is void upon its face.

1950In such circumstances the mere recordation of resale deed does not constructively oust the original owner, and actual occupancy by the county would be required to set in motion the statute of limitation, supra. In Keller v. Hawk, 19 Okla. 407 , 91 P. 778 , it is held the statute of limitations cannot be invoked in aid of a tax deed which is void upon its face.

1931S. 1921, held that: “Although a corporation may have acquired real estate in such a manner as to render it subject to be escheated to the state by a proper action begun for that purpose, yet, if such corporation shall, prior to the commencement of such proceeding to escheat, make a bona fide sale or conveyance of said *10 real estate for value, the purchaser at such sale will take good title thereto.” In that case this court discusses the case of Louisville School Board v. King, 127 Ky. 824 , 107 S. W. 247 , and states, in reference to that case, as follows: “The question involved was upon 'a

1931S. 1921, held that: “Although a corporation may have acquired real estate in such a manner as to render it subject to be escheated to the state by a proper action begun for that purpose, yet, if such corporation shall, prior to the commencement of such proceeding to escheat, make a bona fide sale or conveyance of said *10 real estate for value, the purchaser at such sale will take good title thereto.” In that case this court discusses the case of Louisville School Board v. King, 127 Ky. 824 , 107 S. W. 247 , and states, in reference to that case, as follows: “The question involved was upon 'a

1922In an action of ejectment by 'S. against D. to recover the land, it is held that the deed was absolutely void; that S. could not acquire any right in the land in violation of the treaty, nor could he indirectly build up one by adverse possession, estoppel, or any statute of limitations, and that therefore his action must fail.” In paragraph 4 of the syllabus in O’Brien et al. v. Bugbee et al., 46 Kan. 1 . the Supreme Court of Kansas held: ‘‘Where a plaintiff brings his action in the nature of ejectment against a defendant in the actual possession of Indian land, properly patented to a member o

1922In an action of ejectment by 'S. against D. to recover the land, it is held that the deed was absolutely void; that S. could not acquire any right in the land in violation of the treaty, nor could he indirectly build up one by adverse possession, estoppel, or any statute of limitations, and that therefore his action must fail.” In paragraph 4 of the syllabus in O’Brien et al. v. Bugbee et al., 46 Kan. 1 . the Supreme Court of Kansas held: ‘‘Where a plaintiff brings his action in the nature of ejectment against a defendant in the actual possession of Indian land, properly patented to a member o

1922In an action of ejectment by 'S. against D. to recover the land, it is held that the deed was absolutely void; that S. could not acquire any right in the land in violation of the treaty, nor could he indirectly build up one by adverse possession, estoppel, or any statute of limitations, and that therefore his action must fail.” In paragraph 4 of the syllabus in O’Brien et al. v. Bugbee et al., 46 Kan. 1 . the Supreme Court of Kansas held: ‘‘Where a plaintiff brings his action in the nature of ejectment against a defendant in the actual possession of Indian land, properly patented to a member o

1921And in construing a statute which gives to ‘every wife, child, parent, guardian, husband or other person.’ a right oj: action, for injury by reason of the intoxication of any per *241 son against the seller of the liquors, since the persons enumerated are persons who stand to him in special relation, it is therefore to be assumed that ‘any other person’ who may sue must also stand to him in some special relation so as to be injured by his intoxication or by the sale, etc., to him.” It is obvious from the statement just quoted that the rule of ejusdem generis has no application to the case at b

1921And in construing a statute which gives to ‘every wife, child, parent, guardian, husband or other person.’ a right oj: action, for injury by reason of the intoxication of any per *241 son against the seller of the liquors, since the persons enumerated are persons who stand to him in special relation, it is therefore to be assumed that ‘any other person’ who may sue must also stand to him in some special relation so as to be injured by his intoxication or by the sale, etc., to him.” It is obvious from the statement just quoted that the rule of ejusdem generis has no application to the case at b

1921And in construing a statute which gives to ‘every wife, child, parent, guardian, husband or other person.’ a right oj: action, for injury by reason of the intoxication of any per *241 son against the seller of the liquors, since the persons enumerated are persons who stand to him in special relation, it is therefore to be assumed that ‘any other person’ who may sue must also stand to him in some special relation so as to be injured by his intoxication or by the sale, etc., to him.” It is obvious from the statement just quoted that the rule of ejusdem generis has no application to the case at b