“* * * Considering, one to in every cases where the house is actually acquired by shared business out of couple while in the coverture, as there are not a problem, the entire property should look at the survivor, at whose death, if any of one’s told you assets will always be, one-half of such possessions will go to the heirs of your partner and something-half of into the heirs of one’s partner, depending on the best off icon.”
¶18 The demonstration legal rendered view including therein the above conclusions and you will results, and therein located and adjudged one to Lena had inherited the whole interest in the house, the commonly from Lena, supra, got disposed of said property by the creating a similar to Alexander Linder Seay, and you may quieted identity contrary to the defendants in support of plaintiff.
¶19 Before continuing so you can an aspect of these propositions out of mistake we are expected to dictate in the getting rid of which interest i lead awareness of the next issues and you may regulations of rules.
¶20 The latest activities on the step do not question brand new legitimacy or even the court sufficiency of your deeds to transfer new title on property so you’re able to R.D. Payne.
¶21 In the Lindsay State Financial v. 74, 219 P. want erotic dating site 904, i stored that attention clause from inside the an action away from conveyance was conclusive with regards to providing impression towards operative terminology of one’s action; but also for any kind of goal it’s offered to need from the parol evidence, in fact it is prima facie facts only of the matter, form, and bill of planning, and parol evidence is admissible to exhibit what the real consideration was. Come across plus Webb v. 248, 239 P. 653; Tayiah v. Bunnell, 77 Okl. 40, 186 P. 240; Kirkpatrick v. Jacobson’s Lifetime Property, Inc., Okl., 467 P.2d 489.
¶23 The general code is that the testimony in what a deceased people said during his lives is rumors and it also isn’t rendered competent because of the proven fact that this new declarant possess passed away since the eg report was made. Slater v. Common Work for Health & Collision Assn., Okl., 393 P.2d 838.
¶twenty four This new statement out-of Lena your Hendersons related inside their testimony was made adopting the loss of R.D. Payne and may also not have become made in his visibility. It had been therefore inadmissible for it further reason. See the Slater circumstances, 393 P.2d 839, within p. 842, and Shaw v. Shaw, Okl., 282 P.2d 748, 752.
¶twenty five It suppression is not appropriate to another testimony, supra, because kept statements related to Lena and R.D. Payne was indeed relevant once the being produced in the clear presence of one another. The fresh new findings and wisdom of your own demo legal lack the benefit of the new Hendersons’ testimony.
¶twenty-six Defendants urge the testimony of one’s attorneys James H. Ivy was subject to getting rejected that is objectionable to the the total amount which prejudiced brand new defendants’ case.
¶twenty-seven Defendants cite to get so it proposition an advisory View of Oklahoma Pub Organization Court Ethics Panel, No. 114, lookin within webpage 96 regarding a keen Appendix so you’re able to Oklahoma Choices, 341-343 P.2d. The brand new view in it Code 21 out-of Guidelines regarding Elite Carry out [Canons out-of Top-notch Integrity, canon 19] concerning the propriety away from an attorney acting as an experience to have their customer at once becoming the advice to possess their customer in the same instance, and will be offering one “Except whenever essential to the ends up of justice, a lawyer will be avoid testifying inside the courtroom for the part out-of his consumer.” New view emphatically says that even in the latter instance the fresh attorney is to totally withdraw on the circumstances if for example the items often permit, and give a wide berth to uniting the type off counsel and you can witness on the exact same case.