Brown et al. v. Coppadge et al. The cardinal rule that should guide us in the interpretation of these contracts is to ascertain the intention of the parties thereto as expressed therein, and give effect to the same if it can be done consistently with legal principles. Section 946, Rev. Laws 1910; Kee v. Satterfield, 46 Okla. 660, 149 Pac. 243; 2 Ruling Case Law, sec. 225. In arriving at the intention of the parties to a contract, the language used therein, if it is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity, governs its interpretation. Sections 948 and 949, Rev. Laws 1910. The whole instrument should be read together, and, if possible, every part thereof should be made effective, giving to the words and terms thereof their ordinary and accepted use and meaning. Sections 949 and 951, Rev. Laws 1910; City of Tecumseh v. Burns et al., 30 Okla. 503, 120 Pac. 270; Kansas City Bridge Co. v. Lindsay Bridge Co., 32 Okla. 31, 121 Pac. 639; Lamont Gas & Oil Co. v. Doop & Frater, 39 Okla. 427, 135 Pac. 392; 2 Ruling Case Law, secs. 225 to 227, inclusive. With these rules and principles in mind, we have carefully examined and considered the various contracts and have reached the conclusion that the last contract providing for the sale of 20 acres of said land is clear, explicit, and unambiguous, and that the terms and provisions of the previous contracts relating to the deferred payments, the amount and the manner of paying the same, are wholly inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the last contract. The last contract describes the 20 acres, states the purchase price, the cash payment, and fixes the amount of the deferred payments and the manner of their payment, and the provisions of the pre Opinion of the Court. matters are vious contracts with reference to these wholly inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the last contract. A written contract may be discharged, rescinded, altered, or changed at any time before the performance is due by a new agreement in writing. Section 988, Rev. Laws 1910; Mullen v. Thaxton, 24 Okla. 643, 104 Pac. 359; Smith-Wogan Hdw. & Imp. Co. v. Jos. W. Moon Buggy Co., 26 Okla. 161, 108 Pac. 1103. This last contract abrogated the provisions of the previous contracts with reference to the 20 acres, the purchase price, the cash payment, and the amount and manner of paying the deferred payments. The last contract being clear, explicit, and unambiguous, it was the duty of the court to construe and determine the legal effect thereof. Rider v. Morgan, 31 Okla. 98, 119 Pac. 958. We think the construction placed upon these contracts by the trial court was correct. The judgment should therefore be affirmed. By the Court: It is so ordered. Blackwell et al. v. McCall et al. 1. 2. BLACKWELL et al. v. McCALL et al. No. 5310. Opinion Filed December 14, 1915. (153 Pac. 815.) JUDGMENT-Parties Bound-Grantee. A grantee of land is not bound by a judgment in an action, to which he is not a party, commenced against his grantor subsequent to the grant. SAME Conclusiveness-Collateral Attack. An adjudication of the jurisdictional facts in a domestic judgment is conclusive in a collateral proceeding attacking such judgment by attempting to again put such facts in issue. (Syllabus by Bleakmore, C.) Error from District Court, Rogers County; Action by King D. Blackwell and others against Robert T. McCall, Jr., and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed. A. B. Campbell, for plaintiffs in error. W. H. Kornegay, C. B. Holtzendorff, and P. W. Holtzendorff, for defendants in error. Opinion by BLEAKMORE, C. This action was commenced in the district court of Rogers county on the 15th day of April, 1912, by King D. Blackwell, Solomon Blackwell, and Hazel Blackwell, as plaintiffs, against the defendants in error, as defendants, for the possession of certain lands, damages for the unlawful detention thereof, the cancellation of certain deeds, a mortgage and the assignment thereof, all of record, and to remove the same as a cloud upon their title. The facts are that on September 5, 1905, Rosa Blackwell, the then owner of the lands involved, conveyed Opinion of the Court. the same to her three children, the plaintiffs above named, all of whom were at the time minors. Thereafter Rosa Blackwell married one Brown. In November, 1906, she commenced suit against her said children in the United States Court for the Northern District of the Indian Territory at Claremore, to vacate and set aside said deed. The pleadings, entries upon the appearance docket, etc., in said cause are a part of the record here, it being shown thereby that service of summons in said action was accepted by King D. and Solomon Blackwell on November 28, 1906. Under date of March 11, 1907, upon the appearance docket is shown the following entry: "Service on minors, King David and Solomon and Hazel Blackwell shown. Archibold Bonds, Esq., appointed guardian ad litem." On March 12, 1907, the guardian ad litem filed answer. Upon the advent of statehood the cause was transferred to the district court of Rogers county. On February 14, 1908, by judgment of said court, the deed from Rosa Blackwell to the plaintiffs King D., Solomon, and Hazel Blackwell was canceled and set aside; the court finding: "Now on this the 14th day of February, 1908, the above-entitled cause is reached for trial upon its regular call, both parties being present and announce ready for trial, and agree that said cause may be submitted to the court upon the testimony taken before Hon. A. M. Etchen, Master in Chancery, on the 11th day of March, 1907, and filed in this case on February 10, 1908. And it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the complaint in this case was filed on November 13, 1907, and the process was issued and duly served on the defend Blackwell et al. v. McCall et al. ants, and it further appearing by the return and the pleading in this case that the defendants are minors and that J. B. Brown, of Nowata, Indian Territory, is the guardian of Hazel Blackwell and Solomon Blackwell, and that King David Blackwell now lives with his mother, Rosa Brown, nee Blackwell, and that on March 11, 1907, that Archibold Bonds was duly appointed guardian ad litem, of all of the defendants, and that on March 12, 1907, that he, the said guardian ad litem, filed his answer in this case." On April 8, 1909, in consideration of $3,900, Rosa Blackwell executed a deed conveying certain lands, including those involved herein, to the defendant Robert T. McCall, Jr., who, on February 18, 1910, to secure a debt of $1,000, mortgaged the same to W. L. Dusenberry, who in turn assigned the mortgage to defendant Van Sant Investment Company. On December 31, 1911, McCall and wife conveyed to defendants Yates and McClain, who, on June 28, 1911, conveyed to defendant Frank Landreth. It was stipulated between the parties hereto "that all of said instruments were made, executed, and delivered for value and with no other notice of plaintiffs' claim than that disclosed by the records of Rogers county, Okla." Said conveyances were all duly recorded. After conveying the land to McCall, Rosa Blackwell removed from this state and became a resident of California. Thereafter, on September 22, 1911, suit was instituted by King David, Solomon, and Hazel Blackwell in the district court of Rogers county, solely against their mother, Rosa Blackwell (Brown), to vacate and set aside the judgment of February 14, 1908, setting aside and canceling her conveyance of said lands to them; Solomon being at the time in the United States Navy and Hazel |