Ross v. District Court of Oklahoma County

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Ross v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 199 Okla. 573 (Okla. 1948)
188 P.2d 861; 1948 OK 13; 1948 Okla. LEXIS 443
Riley, Hurst, Bayless, Corn, Gibson, Luttrell, Davison, Welch, Arnold

Ross v. District Court of Oklahoma County

Opinion of the Court

RILEY, J.

Petitioners seek to prohibit respondent from exercising jurisdiction in the trial of cause 111,545 pending in the trial court. By the pending action, W. A. Preston seeks in the district court of Oklahoma county to determine an interest in land situated in Payne county, consisting of an oil and gas royalty alleged to have- been acquired as a result of his joint adventure with defendants.

12 O. S. 1941 §131, subd. (1), restricts actions for the determination in any form of any right or interest in real property to the county in which the subject of the action is situated. An accounting sought between the joint adventurers is dependent upon the interest in land sought to be determined and is' therefore ancillary. Royalty is an interest in real property. Hudson v. Smith, 171 Okla. 79, 41 P. 2d 861; Franklin et al. v. Margay Oil Corp., 194 Okla. 519, 153 P. 2d 486.

Let the writ issue.

HURST, C.J., and BAYLESS, CORN, GIBSON, and LUTTRELL, JJ., concur DAVISON, V.C.J., and WELCH and ARNOLD, JJ., dissent.

Reference

Full Case Name
ROSS v. DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
Cited By
5 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
(Syllabus.) 1. VENUE — Action for determination of right or interest in real property must be brought in county where subject of action located. An action for the determination in any form of any right or interest in real property must be brought in the county in which the subject of the action is situated. 12 O. S. 1941 § 131, sub. (1). 2. PROHIBITION — Proper remedy. Prohibition is a proper remedy to prevent the exercise of jurisdiction not granted by law.