prudent man upon inquiry in Oklahoma

1969Title 25 O.S.1961, § 13 is particularly appropriate, it provides: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In the early case of Cooper v. Flesner et al. (1909), 24 Okl. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 1180, this court treated the notice now provided for in the above statute as being implied actual notice, and in its syllabus to that case restated the rule of the statute, as applied to land t

1969Title 25 O.S.1961, § 13 is particularly appropriate, it provides: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In the early case of Cooper v. Flesner et al. (1909), 24 Okl. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 1180, this court treated the notice now provided for in the above statute as being implied actual notice, and in its syllabus to that case restated the rule of the statute, as applied to land t

1969Title 25 O.S.1961, § 13 is particularly appropriate, it provides: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In the early case of Cooper v. Flesner et al. (1909), 24 Okl. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 1180, this court treated the notice now provided for in the above statute as being implied actual notice, and in its syllabus to that case restated the rule of the statute, as applied to land t

1931S. 1921, defines “actual notice” as follows: “ ‘Actual notice’ consists in express information of a fact.” In the case of Lair v. Meyers, 71 Okla. 175 , 176 Pac. 225 , this court said in the second paragraph of the syllabus: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” While this notice filed of record, when called to the attention of the subsequent purchaser, he will be deemed to have actual notic

1969Title 25 O.S.1961, § 13 is particularly appropriate, it provides: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In the early case of Cooper v. Flesner et al. (1909), 24 Okl. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 1180, this court treated the notice now provided for in the above statute as being implied actual notice, and in its syllabus to that case restated the rule of the statute, as applied to land t

1931S. 1921, defines “actual notice” as follows: “ ‘Actual notice’ consists in express information of a fact.” In the case of Lair v. Meyers, 71 Okla. 175 , 176 Pac. 225 , this court said in the second paragraph of the syllabus: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” While this notice filed of record, when called to the attention of the subsequent purchaser, he will be deemed to have actual notic

1969Title 25 O.S.1961, § 13 is particularly appropriate, it provides: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In the early case of Cooper v. Flesner et al. (1909), 24 Okl. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 1180, this court treated the notice now provided for in the above statute as being implied actual notice, and in its syllabus to that case restated the rule of the statute, as applied to land t

1923We do not think the record before us shows that they have done this. *130 In Herbert v. Wagg, 27 Okla. 674 , 117 Pac. 209 , it was held: “One who purchases land with knowledge of such facts as would put a prudent man upon inquiry, which, if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of rights claimed adversely to his vendor, is guilty of bad faith if he neglects io make such inquiry and is chargeable with the ‘actual notice’ he would have received. * * *” For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court, in so far as it affects the one-fifth interest in the land rep

1969Title 25 O.S.1961, § 13 is particularly appropriate, it provides: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In the early case of Cooper v. Flesner et al. (1909), 24 Okl. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 1180, this court treated the notice now provided for in the above statute as being implied actual notice, and in its syllabus to that case restated the rule of the statute, as applied to land t

1923We do not think the record before us shows that they have done this. *130 In Herbert v. Wagg, 27 Okla. 674 , 117 Pac. 209 , it was held: “One who purchases land with knowledge of such facts as would put a prudent man upon inquiry, which, if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of rights claimed adversely to his vendor, is guilty of bad faith if he neglects io make such inquiry and is chargeable with the ‘actual notice’ he would have received. * * *” For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court, in so far as it affects the one-fifth interest in the land rep

1969Title 25 O.S.1961, § 13 is particularly appropriate, it provides: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In the early case of Cooper v. Flesner et al. (1909), 24 Okl. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 1180, this court treated the notice now provided for in the above statute as being implied actual notice, and in its syllabus to that case restated the rule of the statute, as applied to land t

1969Title 25 O.S.1961, § 13 is particularly appropriate, it provides: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In the early case of Cooper v. Flesner et al. (1909), 24 Okl. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 1180, this court treated the notice now provided for in the above statute as being implied actual notice, and in its syllabus to that case restated the rule of the statute, as applied to land t

1928In Cooper v. Flesner, 24 Okla. 47 , 103 Pac. 1016 , it was held: “One who purchases land with knowledge of such facts, as would put a prudent man upon inquiry, which if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of rights claimed adversely to his vendor, is guilty of bad faith if he neglects to make such inquiry, and is ehargeablé with the ‘actual notice’ he would have received.” In Creek Land & Improvement Co. v. Davis, 28 Okla. 579 , 115 Pac. 468 , it was said: “A purchaser of lands takes them with constructive notice of whatever appears in the conveyances which constitu

1928In Cooper v. Flesner, 24 Okla. 47 , 103 Pac. 1016 , it was held: “One who purchases land with knowledge of such facts, as would put a prudent man upon inquiry, which if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of rights claimed adversely to his vendor, is guilty of bad faith if he neglects to make such inquiry, and is ehargeablé with the ‘actual notice’ he would have received.” In Creek Land & Improvement Co. v. Davis, 28 Okla. 579 , 115 Pac. 468 , it was said: “A purchaser of lands takes them with constructive notice of whatever appears in the conveyances which constitu

2004For the past application of these provisions in different contexts, see Bushert v. Hughes, 1996 OK 21 , 912 P.2d 334 , 343 n. 2; Matter of Estate of Pope, 1990 OK 125 , 808 P.2d 640 , 646 n. 32; Sandpiper [North Apts. v. American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Shawnee], supra note 19 [ 1984 OK 13 , 680 P.2d 983 ] at 990 n. 16. .

2004For the past application of these provisions in different contexts, see Bushert v. Hughes, 1996 OK 21 , 912 P.2d 334 , 343 n. 2; Matter of Estate of Pope, 1990 OK 125 , 808 P.2d 640 , 646 n. 32; Sandpiper [North Apts. v. American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Shawnee], supra note 19 [ 1984 OK 13 , 680 P.2d 983 ] at 990 n. 16. .

1964In Trosper v. McKee, 153 Okl. 12 , 4 P.2d 755 , we held that whatever is notice enough to excite attention and put a reasonable prudent person on his guard and calls for inquiry, is notice of everything to which inquiry might have led.

1964In Trosper v. McKee, 153 Okl. 12 , 4 P.2d 755 , we held that whatever is notice enough to excite attention and put a reasonable prudent person on his guard and calls for inquiry, is notice of everything to which inquiry might have led.

1940In Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 141 , 25 L.

1915Laws 1910, provides: “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In elaborating upon the rule announced in this statute, which but gives expression to the common law, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 141 , 25 L.

1916They more often mean knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficiently pertinent in character to enable reasonably cautious and prudent persons to investigate and ascertain as to the ultimate facts.” And ■ further that: “One who purchases land with knowledge of such facts as would put a prudent man upon inquiry, which, if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of rights claimed adversely to his vendor, is guilty ’of bad faith if he neglects to make such inquiry, *688 and is chargeable with the ‘actual notice’ he would have received.” This case was cited and followed in

1916They more often mean knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficiently pertinent in character to enable reasonably cautious and prudent persons to investigate and ascertain as to the ultimate facts.” And ■ further that: “One who purchases land with knowledge of such facts as would put a prudent man upon inquiry, which, if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of rights claimed adversely to his vendor, is guilty ’of bad faith if he neglects to make such inquiry, *688 and is chargeable with the ‘actual notice’ he would have received.” This case was cited and followed in

1927In Lair v. Myers, 71 Okla. 175 , 176 Pac. 225 , it is said; “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have notice of the fact itself.” Winsted v. Shank et al., 68 Okla. 269 , 173 Pac. 1041 ; Daniel v. Tolon et al., 53 Okla. 666 , 157 Pac. 756 .

1927In Lair v. Myers, 71 Okla. 175 , 176 Pac. 225 , it is said; “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have notice of the fact itself.” Winsted v. Shank et al., 68 Okla. 269 , 173 Pac. 1041 ; Daniel v. Tolon et al., 53 Okla. 666 , 157 Pac. 756 .

1931“Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In Dow v. Worley, 126 Okla. 175 , 256 P. 56 , it was held: “"Whatever is notice enough to excite attention and put a reasonably prudent person on his guard and calls for inquiry, is notice of everything to which such 'inquiry might have led.

1931“Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.” In Dow v. Worley, 126 Okla. 175 , 256 P. 56 , it was held: “"Whatever is notice enough to excite attention and put a reasonably prudent person on his guard and calls for inquiry, is notice of everything to which such 'inquiry might have led.

1935“Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have ‘notice’ of the fact itself.” Coleman et al. v. Armstrong et al., 128 Okla. 87 , 261 P. 228 .

1935“Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have ‘notice’ of the fact itself.” Coleman et al. v. Armstrong et al., 128 Okla. 87 , 261 P. 228 .

1928In Cooper v. Flesner, 24 Okla. 47 , 103 Pac. 1016 , it was held: “One who purchases land with knowledge of such facts, as would put a prudent man upon inquiry, which if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of rights claimed adversely to his vendor, is guilty of bad faith if he neglects to make such inquiry, and is ehargeablé with the ‘actual notice’ he would have received.” In Creek Land & Improvement Co. v. Davis, 28 Okla. 579 , 115 Pac. 468 , it was said: “A purchaser of lands takes them with constructive notice of whatever appears in the conveyances which constitu

1928In Cooper v. Flesner, 24 Okla. 47 , 103 Pac. 1016 , it was held: “One who purchases land with knowledge of such facts, as would put a prudent man upon inquiry, which if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of rights claimed adversely to his vendor, is guilty of bad faith if he neglects to make such inquiry, and is ehargeablé with the ‘actual notice’ he would have received.” In Creek Land & Improvement Co. v. Davis, 28 Okla. 579 , 115 Pac. 468 , it was said: “A purchaser of lands takes them with constructive notice of whatever appears in the conveyances which constitu

1918Bank of Enid, 21 Okla. 206 , 95 Pac. 785 ; said: “In an action on a negotiable draft by the holder thereof, who acquired it for value before maturity, (without notice, against an indorser from whom the draft was obtained by fraud, knowledge of such facts as would put a prudent man upon inquiry in reference to the draft is not sufficient to defeat the right of the holder to recover, and the court may direct -a verdict in favor of the holder, when the circumstances sourrounding the transaction are not sufficiently strong for it to be said as a matter of law that bad faith may be reasonably infer

1918Bank of Enid, 21 Okla. 206 , 95 Pac. 785 ; said: “In an action on a negotiable draft by the holder thereof, who acquired it for value before maturity, (without notice, against an indorser from whom the draft was obtained by fraud, knowledge of such facts as would put a prudent man upon inquiry in reference to the draft is not sufficient to defeat the right of the holder to recover, and the court may direct -a verdict in favor of the holder, when the circumstances sourrounding the transaction are not sufficiently strong for it to be said as a matter of law that bad faith may be reasonably infer

2010Co. 2006 OK 74 , 145 P.3d 1081 , the Supreme Court quoted from 25 0.S$.2001 § 18-"Every person who has actual notice of cireumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself." The facts set forth in the foregoing paragraph, considered together, are certainly sufficient to have put Lamb "upon inquiry" that he was accused of "sexual finappropriateness" and that the allegations were being investigated with a view toward administrative and/or eriminal

2010Co. 2006 OK 74 , 145 P.3d 1081 , the Supreme Court quoted from 25 0.S$.2001 § 18-"Every person who has actual notice of cireumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself." The facts set forth in the foregoing paragraph, considered together, are certainly sufficient to have put Lamb "upon inquiry" that he was accused of "sexual finappropriateness" and that the allegations were being investigated with a view toward administrative and/or eriminal

2004For the past application of these provisions in different contexts, see Bushert v. Hughes, 1996 OK 21 , 912 P.2d 334 , 343 n. 2; Matter of Estate of Pope, 1990 OK 125 , 808 P.2d 640 , 646 n. 32; Sandpiper [North Apts. v. American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Shawnee], supra note 19 [ 1984 OK 13 , 680 P.2d 983 ] at 990 n. 16. .

2002Towne v. Hubbard, 2000 OK 30, ¶ 14 , 3 P.3d 154, 160 .

2002Towne v. Hubbard, 2000 OK 30, ¶ 14 , 3 P.3d 154, 160 .

1994Such new evidentiary material was not properly to be considered in ruling on the motion, Culpepper v. Lloyd, 583 P.2d 500 (Okla.1978), and will not be considered on appeal, as it is not properly a part of the record here. 2 . 25 O.S.1991 § 11: Actual notice consists in express information of a fact. 3 . 25 O.S. § 13: Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omits to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself.