TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wooten v. State ex rel. Comr's of Land Office

WOOTEN Et Al. v. STATE Ex Rel. COMR’S OF THE LAND OFFICE

Wooten v. State ex rel. Comr's of Land Office, 1942 OK 323, 129 P.2d 584
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 29, 1942
Docket
No. 30309.
Judges
Davison, Welch, Corn, Riley, Osborn, Bayless, Hurst, Gibson, Arnold
Citations
129 P.2d 5841942 OK 323191 Okla. 3061942 Okla. LEXIS 415

Opinion of the Court — Davison

DAVISON, J.

This is an action to foreclosure a real estate mortgage executed on November 7, 1930, to the Commissioners of the Land Office to secure a loan of $2,700 made from the school fund to Estella M. Wooten and Arthur Wooten, wife and husband, mortgagors. Default in payment occurred in 1931.

*307 The action was instituted on April 10, 1940, in the district court of Cimarron county (that being the county in which the mortgaged property is situated) by the State of Oklahoma on relation of the Commissioners of the Land Office, as plaintiff, against the Wootens and others as defendants. Personal judgment as well as a decree of foreclosure was sought against the Wootens.

The decision of the trial court was for the plaintiff, and the Wootens have appealed, appearing herein as plaintiffs in error. We shall continue to refer to the parties by their trial court designation.

The sole and only contention of the defendants is that the action was barred within five years by the statute of limitation (12 O. S. 1941 § 95).

The contention is untenable for the reason that this is an action instituted and prosecuted by the state in its sovereign capacity for the enforcement of a public right as distinguished from a private right. When prosecuting an action in such a capacity and for such" a purpose, the state is immune from the operation of the statute.

It is the general rule that unless the statute of limitations provided to the contrary, or unless the state is included in the nature of the mischiefs sought to be remedied by the statute, said statutes do not apply to states suing in their sovereign capacity. White v. State, 50 Okla. 97 , 150 P. 716 ; White v. State, 50 Okla. 104 , 150 P. 718 ; 34 Am. Jur. 307 . This doctrine of sovereign immunity has been applied in this jurisdiction to actions by the State Bank Commissioners arising in connection with the liquidation of insolvent banks (State v. McLaughlin, 159 Okla. 4 , 12 P. 2d 1106 ; State v. Smith, 77 Okla. 277 , 188 P. 96 ); even though other states do not extend the doctrine that far. Annotation 122 A. L. R. 945; 34 Am. Jur. 314 . The doctrine applies where the state is acting in its sovereign capacity to protect or enforce a public right as distinguished from a private right. Herndon v. Board of Com’rs of Pontotoc Co., 158 Okla. 14 , 11 P. 2d 939 ; State ex rel. v. Hall, 191 Okla. 257 , 128 P. 2d 838 .

Notice and consider, also, United States v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co., 118 U. S. 120 , 30 L. Ed. 81 . The basis of the doctrine was stated in White v. State, supra ( 50 Okla. 97 ):

“. . . The ground on which this doctrine rests is the great principle of public policy that the public interests shall not be prejudiced by the negligence of public officers, to whose care they are consigned.”

And in Board of County Com’rs v. Good Township of Harper County, 188 Okla. 151 , 107 P. 2d 805 , it was said:

“If this court is to continue to recognize a distinction between a public and private right of a political subdivision of the state with reference to the application of the statute of limitations thereto, the distinction when drawn should be bolstered by every reasonable presumption favorable to government immunity from the limitation It is thus apparent that the statute of limitations does not bar an action to foreclosé a real estate mortgage executed to the Commissioners of the Land Office to secure a loan from the school fund, and to enforce the debt which it secures.

The state also asserts that in this case defendants’ contention is not well taken for the added reason that the statute does not commence to run from date of default under an accelerated maturity clause, but runs from maturity date unless the state as mortgagee elects to act under the accelerated maturity clause. The appeal being disposed of on the grounds as previously stated, this latter view of the case will not be discussed.

Affirmed.

WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, and HURST, JJ., concur. GIBSON and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1944: 11952: 11958: 11964: 11983: 11993: 119442026peak 1944 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Cartwright v. Tidmore1983 OK 116, 674 P.2d 14
  2. State Insurance Fund v. Taron1958 OK 282, 333 P.2d 508
  3. State ex rel. Schones v. Town of Canute1993 OK 90, 858 P.2d 436
  4. Sears v. Fair1964 OK 239, 397 P.2d 134
  5. State ex rel. Oklahoma Employment SEC. Com. v. Eddie154 P.2d 763 (Okla. 1944)
  6. Opinion No.(Okla. Att’y Gen. Mar. 18, 1952)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Schones v. Town of Canute1993 OK 90, 858 P.2d 436
  2. State ex rel. Cartwright v. Tidmore1983 OK 116, 674 P.2d 14
  3. Sears v. Fair1964 OK 239, 397 P.2d 134
  4. State Insurance Fund v. Taron1958 OK 282, 333 P.2d 508
  5. Opinion No.(Okla. Att’y Gen. Mar. 18, 1952)
  6. State ex rel. Oklahoma Employment SEC. Com. v. Eddie154 P.2d 763 (Okla. 1944)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 8

DepthCaseCited by
White v. State, 150 P. 716 (Okla. 1915) 20
United States v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. Co., 118 U.S. 120 (1886) 188
State ex rel. Comm'rs of Land Office v. Hall, 1942 OK 41, 128 P.2d 838 22
Herndon v. Bd. of Com'rs of Pontotoc Cnty., 1932 OK 341, 11 P.2d 939 13
State ex rel. Freeling v. Smith, 1920 OK 99, 188 P. 96 13
State ex rel. Shull v. McLaughlin, 1932 OK 294, 12 P.2d 1106 10
Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs v. Good Twp., 1940 OK 450, 107 P.2d 805 9
White v. State, 150 P. 718 (Okla. 1915) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list