# Craig v. Unknown Heirs, Executors, Administrators, Devisees, Trustees & Assigns, Immediate & Remote, of Craig

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · January 10, 1961 · 358 P.2d 835

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794350

## Case

- **Full name:** Willard CRAIG, Dot Cavanar Craig, Maggie Yount, Cora Palmer, Fleeda Goodrich, Birl Craig and Evert Craig, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Group I: UNKNOWN HEIRS, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, DEVISEES, TRUSTEES AND ASSIGNS, IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE, OF Samuel B. CRAIG, Deceased, and Caroline Craig, Deceased. Group II: Independence Community Corporation, a Corporation, Independent School District No. 29 of Cleveland County, and Independent School District No. 40 of Cleveland County, Defendants in Error; Willard CRAIG, Hallett Lawrence and Fleeda Lawrence, Formerly Goodrich, Plaintiffs in Error, v. INDEPENDENCE COMMUNITY CORPORATION, Defendant in Error
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 10, 1961
- **Citations:** 358 P.2d 835; 1961 OK 2; 1961 Okla. LEXIS 356
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Welch
- **Judges:** Blackbird, Williams, Halley, Dav-Ison, Jackson, Irwin, Berry, Welch, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794350

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting, where property had been held in reserve for two years for possible future use as a school, that “the evidence shows no definite intention or contemplation[] to use the land for any purpose connected with maintaining a public school”
- concluding that holding property in idle reserve and using it to store classroom seats did not comport with school purposes

## Opinion text

WELCH, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent to this reversal of the trial court’s judgment in favor of school district.
I would affirm the trial court on the theory that there was not sufficient showing of such an abandonment or nonuser, or such incompatible or inconsistent use, by school district, as to forfeit this property and cause same to revert back from the district to private ownership.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794350. Public record. Not legal advice.