Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

199 Okla. 308

Thomas v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided April 23, 1947

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · decided 1947-04-23

(Syllabus.) 1. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT — <italic>Burden of proof on attorney</italic> <italic>to establish validity of his purchase of client's</italic> <italic>property.</italic> Although an attorney is not under an absolute disability to purchase his client's property, where he does so during the existence of the relation of attorney and client, with respect to the property so purchased, he assumes the heavy burden of proving his utmost good faith and fairness in the transaction and that he paid an adequate consideration for the property. He must also show that he fully informed his client of all the material facts and gave the same disinterested advice he would have given had the sale been made to a stranger. 2. APPEAL AND ERROR — <italic>Sufficiency of evidence in</italic> <italic>equity case.</italic> Upon appeal of a case of equitable cognizance this court will weigh and consider the evidence, and will affirm the finding and judgment of the trial court, unless such finding and judgment are against the clear weight of the evidence. 3. SAME — <italic>Evidence sustained judgment canceling</italic> <italic>conveyance of interest in oil royalty by client to</italic> <italic>attorney.</italic> Record and evidence weighed and examined, and it is found that the judgment of the trial court is properly supported, and is not against the clear weight of the evidence.

Relies on Tomlin v. Roberts · Warner v. Coleman · Mansfield, Brunson, Kemp & Ahrens v. King

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1947-04-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1984

4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

3019471950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1On Application for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

¶2In connection with application for rehearing we think we should discuss the asserted question of the statute of limitations.

¶3For the reasons indicated by the facts and contentions of plaintiff as stated in the opinion, which contentions were supported by the trial court findings, we are of the opinion now, as we were in adopting the opinion, that this is not an action for recovery of real estate, barred in 15 years (12 O. S. 1941 §93, subd. 4), but is an action for relief on the ground of fraud, maintainable for two years after discovery of the fraud. (12 O. S. 1941 §95, subd. 3.) See Warner v. Coleman, 107 Okla. 292, 231 P. 1053; Tomlin v. Roberts, 126 Okla. 165, 258 P. 1041; and Mansfield v. King, 160 Okla. 243, 16 P. 2d 87.

¶4The opinion discloses the time that elapsed before plaintiff first discovered the conveyance or learned of any claims based thereon, and that this action was commenced within two or three months of such discovery. See American National Bank of Enid v. Crews, 191 Okla. 53, 126 P.2d 733.

¶5The opinion also discloses the facts as to the confidential relationship and lack of claims under the instrument which justify plaintiff’s exemption from the constructive notice rule as to public records. See Kauffman v. McLaughlin, 189 Okla. 194, 114 P.2d 929.

¶6Rehearing denied.

HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, WELCH, CORN, GIBSON, and LUTTRELL, JJ., concur.
/199/okla/308 · .json · Public domain