YODER v. WESTON

YODER v. WESTON
1926 OK 895
250 P. 522
122 Okla. 51
Case Number: 16941
Decided: 11/09/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

YODER et ux.
v.
WESTON et ux.

Syllabus

¶0 Limitation of Actions--Action for Fraud--Accrual of Cause of Action--"Until Discovery of the Fraud"--Statute Construed.
The phrase "until the discovery of the fraud," contained in the third paragraph of section 185, Comp. Stat. 1921, does not necessarily mean until the party complaining had actual notice of the fraud alleged to have been committed, for fraud is deemed to be discovered, within the statute of limitation, when in the exercise of reasonable diligence it could have been discovered. Hence, where a party defrauded has the means at hand to readily discover the fraud, and such means of information would have been used by a person of ordinary care, in the transaction of his own business, such party will be held as a matter of law, to have had due notice of everything which a proper use of such means would have disclosed.

Saunders & Emerick, for plaintiffs in error.
Arrington & Evans, for defendants in error.

NICHOLSON, C. J.

¶1 On May 6, 1920, W. W. Yoder and Jennie Yoder, his wife, conveyed to M. A. Weston certain lands in Pottawatomie county by warranty deed, in which the grantors as a part of the consideration reserved one-half of all oil, gas, and mineral rights in and to said premises." This deed was duly filed for record in the office of the county clerk of said county on May 7, 1920, and was returned to Weston about two weeks thereafter. On February 24, 1923, M. A. Weston, joined by his wife, Martha J. Weston, instituted this action against W. W. Yoder and his wife, to quiet the title to said premises, alleging in their petition that the defendants claimed some right, title, and interest in said premises, the exact nature of which they were unable to state, but that the defendants had no right in and to said premises or any part thereof. The defendants answered, pleading that they were the owners of an undivided one-half interest in the oil and gas rights under the above-mentioned reservation in said deed, to which answer the plaintiffs filed a reply, pleading, in substance, that said reservation was made without their knowledge or consent, and made by said Yoder with the intent on his part to cheat and defraud them, and constituted fraud upon them, and that they did not discover the fraud until about the first day of February, 1923. The sufficiency of this reply was challenged by demurrer. The case, though of purely equitable cognizance, was submitted to a jury, and after a demurrer to the plaintiffs' evidence had been overruled, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, upon which judgment was duly entered, and from which the defendants have appealed. Without commenting on the sufficiency of the allegations of fraud or the sufficiency of the evidence to establish fraud, we will consider only the question of limitations, urged as a defense in the trial court and relied upon here for a reversal of the judgment.