Mallen v. Ruth Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 2089. |
| Citation | 230 F. 497 |
| Parties | MALLEN et al. v. RUTH OIL CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma |
O'Hare & Davidson, of Muskogee, Okl., and Bert Van Leuven, of Nowata, Okl., for plaintiffs.
Biddison & Campbell, of Tulsa, Okl., and Lambert & Sloop and Stanford & Stanford, all of Independence, Kan., for defendants.
Geo. S Ramsey and Edgar A. De Meules, both of Muskogee, Okl., and John M. Chick, of Tulsa, Okl., amici curiae.
As to whether the demurrer in this case is well taken or not depends upon whether the county courts of this state may order guardians of minors to execute oil and gas leases of the ward's land for terms extending beyond minority: If such leases are valid after the minor reaches majority, the demurrer should be sustained. If not, it should be overruled.
Section 11 of article 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides for the establishment of the county court in each county, which shall be a court of record. Section 13 of article 7 of the state Constitution provides:
The effect of the foregoing constitutional provision, so far as it relates to the question now being considered, is to clothe the county court with full, complete, and exclusive jurisdiction and authority to transact all business appertaining to the estates of minors, including the sale, settlement, partition, and distribution of the same. The jurisdiction is full and complete, so far as relates to matters appertaining to business of the estates of minors, because it applies to all business of that character. It must be exclusive, because it is not to be presumed, in the absence of clear provisions to the contrary, that the framers of the Constitution intended there should be any division of authority between the county courts and any other courts of the state relating to this important matter, in view of the embarrassment and confusion which such divided authority would lead to. The jurisdiction is neither in plain terms nor by implication lodged in any other court.
By section 3330 of the Revised Laws of Oklahoma it is provided that:
'In all cases the court making the appointment of a guardian has exclusive jurisdiction to control him in the management and disposition of the person and property of his ward.'
By section 6569 of the Revised Laws of Oklahoma it is provided:
'The county court, on the application of a guardian or any person interested in the estate of any ward, after such notice to persons interested therein as the judge shall direct, may authorize and require the guardian to invest the proceeds of sales, and any other of his ward's money in his hands, in real estate, or in any other manner most to the interest of all concerned therein; and the county court may make such other orders and give such directions as are needful for the management, investment and disposition of the estate and effects, as circumstances require.'
By section 6547 of the Revised Laws of Oklahoma it is provided:
'Guardians of infants and insane persons are hereby empowered to lease and grant mineral oil and mineral gas, in consideration of a royalty or part or portion of the production thereof, and under the same procedure in the county court, as now provided by law, where such consideration is money.'
The 'procedure' mentioned under which such lease shall be made the Supreme Court of this state has held refers to the portion of section 6569, supra, which provides:
'The county court may make such other orders and give such directions as are needful for the management, investment and disposition of the estate and effects, as circumstances require.'
It is therefore held that oil and gas leases made by the guardian under authority of section 6547, supra, in order to be valid must be first approved by the county court. Duff et al. v. Keaton et al., 33 Okl. 92, 124 P. 291, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 472. It is clear therefore that the guardian may, with the approval of the county court, make a valid oil and gas lease of his ward's land for a period covering at least the term of minority. The statute authorizing such leases does not undertake in terms to fix the period for which such leases shall be made to run. If the county court is without authority to authorize the guardian to make an oil and gas lease beyond the term of minority 'when circumstances require,' then it must follow that cases will from time to time arise when the court will be seriously hampered in the transaction of business appertaining to the ward's estate and will be precluded from making such orders for the management and disposition of the estate as the circumstances require. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the development of the oil business new territory is constantly being proven. When a paying well is brought in in new territory, the rush for leases is very like the rush for claims in a new mining camp. Frequently the largest bonuses and the best terms are procured during the first flush of the excitement. But suppose that in such a case the ward's land is in the midst of the most desirable territory, but he is say 19 or 20 years old, so that, if the court and the guardian may not make and approve a lease beyond his minority, its term can only be one or two years as the case may be. His neighbors adjoining may lease for 10, 15, or 20 years, and so much longer as oil and gas may be found in paying quantities. It is obvious that the purchasers of such leases would give vastly more for the long-term leases than the one running only for one or two years. It might reasonably happen that this handicap against the leasing of the ward's land would make it impossible to effect any lease at all, and that immediate development on adjoining tracts would result in serious drainage of the land, which, during a year or two, might practically ruin it as an oil and gas property, and thus divest it of the greatest element of value it contains, and leave to the ward when he reaches majority the mere shell. Now, in a case of this kind, a most important feature of business appertaining to the estate of the ward is the disposition of his land for oil and gas purposes to the very best advantage. The ward, by reason of his disability of minority, cannot act. It is for this reason that the county court is authorized to act for him.
In the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction to transact all business appertaining to the estates of minors, the county court must, I think, be held to have all the powers relating to the conduct of minors' estates which formerly belonged to courts of equity. In Gassenheimer v. Gassenheimer, 108 Ala. 651, 18 So. 520, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren v. Stanfield (In re Stanfield)
...143, 145–146. 31.Cabin Valley Mining Co. v. Hall, 1916 OK 205, 53 Okla. 760, 155 P. 570, 573 quoting with approval Mallen v. Ruth Oil Co., 230 F. 497, 500 (E.D.Okla.1915) (“In the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction to transact all business appertaining to the estates of minors, the coun......
-
Cabin Valley Mining Co. v. Hall
...section 13, art. 7, supra, the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of this state, in the case of Mallen v. Ruth Oil Co., 230 F. 497, reached the conclusion that the county court had authority to authorize a guardian to execute an oil and gas mining lease upon the la......
-
Jones v. Prairie Oil Gas Co
...last beyond the minority of their wards. Cabin Valley Min- ing Co. v. Hall, 53 Okl. 760, 155 P. 570, L. R. A. 1916F, 493; Mallen v. Ruth Oil Co. (D. C.) 230 F. 497, affirmed (C. C. A.) 231 F. 845. The fugitive character of the subject-matter makes it necessary in the ward's interest that gu......
-
Cabin Valley Min. Co. v. Hall
...section 13, art. 7, supra, the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of this state, in the case of Mallen v. Ruth Oil Co., 230 F. 497, reached conclusion that the county court had authority to authorize a guardian to execute an oil and gas mining lease upon the lands ......