Anicker v. Gunsburg
| Decision Date | 04 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 164,164 |
| Citation | 38 S.Ct. 228,62 L.Ed. 603,246 U.S. 110 |
| Parties | ANICKER v. GUNSBURG et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from page 111 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Frank Hagerman, of Kansas City, Mo., and J. W. Zevely and Richard W. Stoutz, both of Muskogee, Okl., for appellant.
[ Argument of Council on pages 111-113 intentionally omitted.]
Messrs. George S. Ramsey and Edgar A. De Meules, both of Muskogee, Okl., and Malcolm E. Rosser, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellees.
This is a contest between holders of oil and gas leases made by one Eastman Richard, a full-blood Creek Indian, the owner by patent of the west half of the northeast quarter of section 5 of township 17 N., range 7 E., in Creek County, Oklahoma. Richard made a lease of the west one-half of the quarter to David Gunsburg and the Southwestern Petroleum Company on March 20, 1912. This lease was not filed for record with the Indian Agency until April 5, 1912, nor was it recorded with the Register of Deeds for Creek County, Oklahoma. On March 28, 1912, Richards made a like lease for the same premises to the appellant, William J. Anicker, which was filed with the Indian Agency on March 30, 1912, and on April 1, 1912, was filed for record with the Register of Deeds for Creek County, Oklahoma. It thus appears that the lease to Gunsburg and the Southwestern Petroleum Company was earlier than the one to Anicker but the latter was first recorded. Upon hearing upon these conflicting leases the United States Indian Superintendent recommended the approval of the Gunsburg and Southwestern Petroleum Company lease.
After referring to the dates of the leases and the time of filing the same for record, the superintendent said:
'The Department has uniformly held in such cases that where a lease is filed, with the papers necessary for completion of same, within thirty days, that the date of execution is the date from which the priority of the lease is determined.
'To my mind this is the only reasonable construction of the regulations, so long as thirty days or any other period is allowed within which to file a lease. But it is contended on behalf of Mr. Anicker that the lease to Gunsburg and the Southwestern Petroleum Company was obtained by fraud. To this contention I cannot agree for the reason that this lease and the lease to Messrs. Funk & Riter were presented to this office on the date of execution, fully explained by Mr. William Kremer, Asst. Chief Clerk, a notary in this office, and acknowledged by the lessor. This contention the attorneys for Mr. Anicker were unable to support in their cross-examination of Eastman Richard, although it was apparent at that time that the lessor did not remember the names of the lessees. He was however, confident that he had leased his entire allotment at that time, and it appears from Mr. Kremer's testimony, May 14, 1912, page 23, that the lease was fully explained to the lessor, as is done in all cases where leases are acknowledged before a notary in the employ of this office, and considering the numerous declarations and affidavits submitted bearing the lessor's signature in connection with this case, showing a change of attitude upon every occasion approached in connection with these leases, and his lack of business ability, I am not inclined to entertain any doubt as to the fact that the lease was fully explained to him upon the date of execution thereof, notwithstanding his uncertainty at the hearing on May 13th and 14th as to the name of the lessee.
'It is further contended, in behalf of Mr. Anicker, that he should be considered prior lessee for the reason that his lease was made prior to the time the lease of Gunsburg and the Southwestern Petroleum Company was filed at the Union Agency or elsewhere, and that the same was not only filed in the county wherein the land is situate, but also filed at Union Agency at a date prior to the date upon which the lease to Gunsburg and the Southwestern Petroleum Company was received.
'It is also contended that he had no actual notice, and an attempt has been made to show that the lessor had conveyed the idea to Mr. Anicker or his agent that the only lease he had executed when approached by Mr. Anicker, was the lease in favor of the Eastern Oil Company. It will be noted in the testimony that an unsuccessful effort was made to secure an admission from Eastman Richard that would corroborate this contention.
'For the purposes of this case I do not consider it necessary to determine at this time whether or not the evidence at hand shows that such representations were made by the lessor; even admitting that the lessee was misled by the lessor, the regulations which provide thirty days within which a lease may be filed, if binding upon parties interested in securing leases, should be considered as heretofore, as giving that lease priority which bears the prior date of execution and is filed with the papers required, within the 30-day period.
'An examination of the lease to David Gunsburg and the Southwestern Petroleum Company discloses the fact that this lease was filed within thirty days, in accordance with the regulations, and that the same was executed prior to the lease in favor of Mr. Anicker. Concerning the contention of Mr. Anicker that the date of filing should be regarded as the date of priority, which carries with it the contention that the regulations of the Secretary of the Interior allowing thirty days within which to fild a lease is not within the power conferred on the Secretary of the Interior, under the law, which provides in part (section 2, Act of Congress of May 27, 1908 [35 Stat. L. 312]): 'That leases of restricted lands for oil and gas mining purposes * * * may be made with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior under rules and regulations provided by the Secretary of the Interior and not otherwise."
After upholding the right of the Secretary of the Interior to make rules and regulations the superintendent further said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buffalo Basin Petroleum Co. v. Tanberg Oil Co.
...interest in the permit issued in May, 1923, was apparently a matter of discretion, which the courts will not assume to control. Anicker v. Gunsburg, supra. It is not enough that representations may have been made to the Department; it must appear that the representations affected its determ......
-
United States v. Seminole Nation
...decisions in support of this view. Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 294, 23 S.Ct. 115, 47 L.Ed. 183; Anicker v. Gunsburg, 246 U.S. 110, 38 S.Ct. 228, 62 L.Ed. 603; United States v. Wunderlich, 342 U.S. 98, 72 S.Ct. 154, 96 L.Ed. 113; United States v. Moorman, 338 U.S. 457, 461, 70 S.C......
-
Testerman v. Burt
...the federal courts. The case of Knight v. United Land Association, 142 U.S. 161, 35 L. Ed. 974, 12 S. Ct. 258; Anicker v. Gunsburg, 246 U.S. 110, 62 L. Ed. 603, 38 S. Ct. 228; and Work v. United States ex rel. Rives, 267 U.S. 175, 69 L. Ed. 561, 45 S. Ct. 252, are quoted from as sustaining ......
-
Board of Com'rs of Pawnee County, Okl. v. United States, 2719
...188 U.S. 432, 23 S.Ct. 478, 47 L.Ed. 532; West v. Hitchcock, 205 U.S. 80, 85, 27 S.Ct. 423, 51 L.Ed. 718; Anicker v. Gunsburg, 246 U.S. 110, 38 S.Ct. 228, 62 L.Ed. 603; Buster v. Wright, 8 Cir., 135 F. 947; Board of County Commissioners v. Seber, supra; Creek Nation v. United States, 318 U.......
-
COMPATIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY WITH SELF-DETERMINATION OF INDIAN TRIBES: REFLECTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
...494. [112] .Id. at 508. [113] .Id. at 513. [114] .Id. at 515. [115] .Id. at 517 and n.1. [116] .Id. at 515 (quoting Anicker v. Gunsburg, 246 U.S. 110, 119 (1918)). [117] .537 U.S. at 517 and n2. [118] .Id. at 493. [119] .Id. at 502-506. [120] .Id. at 506. [121] .Id. at 493. [122] .5 U.S.C. ......