Mallen v. Ruth Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1916
• Docket Number: 4566.
• Parties: MALLEN et al. v. RUTH OIL CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

231 F. 845

MALLEN et al. v. RUTH OIL CO. et al.

No. 4566.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 30, 1916

Samuel V. O'Hare, of Muskogee, Okl., for plaintiffs in error.

A. J Biddison, of Tulsa, Okl., and George S. Ramsey, of Muskogee Okl. (Biddison & Campbell, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for defendants in error.

Before ADAMS, Circuit Judge, and REED and ELLIOTT, District Judges.

ADAMS Circuit Judge.

The plaintiffs in error, who are the heirs at law of one Jesse D Mallen, deceased, brought this action in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma to recover possession of a certain described tract of land located in the county of Nowata, in the state of Oklahoma. They alleged in their petition that on April 7, 1912, William Mallen, who before then had been duly appointed by the county court of Nowata county legal guardian of Jesse D. Mallen, who was then a minor, executed an oil and gas lease to the defendant, Ruth Oil Company, which was duly approved by the county court of Nowata county, whereby he demised, for a consideration specified, to the lessee all the oil and gas in and under the land, 'for the term of minority of said minor, and so long thereafter as oil or gas is found on said premises in paying quantities'; that Jesse D. Mallen, had he lived, would have reached the age of 21 years on September 1, 1913; that the term of the lease executed by his guardian therefore expired, by limitation, on that date; that the county court of Nowata county had no jurisdiction or power to authorize the guardian to execute a lease of his ward's land for oil and gas mining purposes for a term extending beyond the minority of the ward; and that the plaintiffs, as the heirs at law of the deceased minor, were entitled to the possession of the demised premises and a judgment for rents, incomes and profits accruing since the 1st day of September, 1913.

To this petition the defendants demurred, alleging that it failed to state a cause of action. This demurrer was sustained, and, the plaintiffs declining to plead further, judgment was rendered for the defendants, for the reversal of which plaintiffs prosecute this writ of error.

The sole question raised by the assignment of error is this: Is an oil and gas mining lease, executed by a guardian of a minor in the state of Oklahoma under the authority and direction of the county court, containing this habendum clause, 'To have and to hold the above described premises for the term of minority of said minor, and so long thereafter as oil or gas is found on said premises in paying quantities,' a valid lease in so far as its term extends beyond the minority of the ward?

Although the ward was an Indian, the question is not embarrassed by any Indian statute, or law specially applicable to Indians, but is one of general law, and is to be considered accordingly. It is well settled by the authorities, and so conceded by counsel, that a lease of that kind as between parties sui juris is valid for the term as stated, namely, 'so long thereafter as oil or gas is found on said premises in paying quantities'; but the plaintiffs in error contend that this rule does not prevail in leases executed by a guardian in right of his ward, that such leases are valid as conveyances for the term of minority only, and voidable thereafter. Defendants in error, on the contrary, contend that such leases are valid conveyances for the full term 'so long thereafter as oil or gas is found on said premises in paying quantities.' Which is right?

Section 11 of article 7 of the Constitution of Oklahoma provides for the establishment of a county court in each county of the state, and that it shall be a court of record; and section 12 of that article provides that the county court shall have original jurisdiction coextensive with the county in all probate matters. Section 13 of that article is as follows:

'The county court shall have the general jurisdiction of a probate court. It shall probate wills, appoint guardians of minors, idiots, lunatics, persons non compos mentis, and common drunkards; grant letters testamentary and of administration, settle accounts of executors, administrators, and guardians; transact all business appertaining to the estates of deceased persons, minors, idiots, lunatics, persons non compos mentis, and common drunkards, including the sale, settlement, partition, and distribution of the estates thereof.'

The relevant statutes of the state are as follows:

Section 3330 (Revised Laws of Oklahoma 1910) provides 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.'

Section 3335 is as follows:

'A guardian of the property must keep safely the property of his ward. He must not permit any unnecessary waste or destruction of the real property, nor make any sale of such property without the order of the county court.

Section 6532 requires that the guardian, before the issuance of letters of guardianship to him, shall execute a bond with sufficient sureties, conditioned that he will make an inventory of all the estate, real and personal, of his ward, dispose of and manage the estate according to law and for the best interest of his ward, faithfully discharge his trust in relation thereto, and render an account, on oath, of the property, estate, and moneys of the ward in his hands, and all proceeds or interests derived therefrom, and of the management and disposition of the same.

Section 6554 is as follows:

'When it appears to the satisfaction of the court, upon the petition of the guardian, that for the benefit of his ward his real or personal estate, or some part thereof, should be sold, and the proceeds thereof put out at interest, or invested in some productive stock, or in the improvement or security of any other real estate of the ward, his guardian may sell the same for such purpose, upon obtaining an order therefor.'

Section 6569 is as follows:

'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.'

The foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions (other than section 6547, to which attention will be given later) disclose, in our opinion, that the organic law of the state and many legislative enactments in harmony therewith, confer upon the county court of the state very general and comprehensive supervision over the 'management,' 'control,' 'sale,' and 'disposition' of the estates of minors under guardianship. They confer upon such courts, among other specific provisions, jurisdiction: (1) To appoint guardians for minors; (2) to transact all business appertaining to their estates; and (3) to control the guardian in the management, control and disposition of the property of his ward; and they specifically confer upon guardians of a minor the right to petition the county court for leave to sell his real estate and reinvest the proceeds of such sale whenever it shall be made to appear to the court that such sale would be for the benefit of his ward, and in express terms confer upon the court power to make such an order upon the petition of the guardian, making a showing of that kind, and require the guardian to file a bond, conditioned for the faithful discharge of his duties, including rendering an account for all moneys coming into his hands or interest derived from the management and disposition of his ward's property, and in express terms confer upon county courts the power to 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.

These provisions would seem, on a proper and harmonious consideration of them all taken together, if not, indeed upon the consideration of several of them severally and independently, to afford ample authority for the sale or other disposition by the guardian, when authorized by the appropriate county court, of any and all property, whether real or personal, belonging to the...