Megreedy v. Macklin
| Decision Date | 09 June 1903 |
| Parties | JOANNA MEGREEDY AND WILLIAM R. MCDONALD, v. J. B. MACKLIN, AND DOLLY FLITCH |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 INDIAN LANDS--Sub- leasing In Violation of Terms of Lease Illegal.
Where a party holds a lease of Indian lands which has been approved by the proper officers of the interior department, such lease. containing a provision that the party holding the lease will not at any time, during the period for which the said lands and premises are herein leased, sub-lease, assign, lease, convey or transfer any of his estate, interest or term or any part thereof, or sublet the same to any person without the consent thereto of the party of the first part and the approval of the same by the secretary of the interior: Held, that a sub-leasing of the same without the consent of the secretary of the interior is void, and conveys no rights by such sub- leasing, and that the sub-lease cannot be enforced; that the doctrine of estoppel between landlord and tenant does not apply.
On the 4th day of August, 1900, William R. McDonald, as administrator of the estate of William R. Megreedy, commenced this action in the district court of Noble county by filing his petition in which he alleges that William R. Megreedy owned a lease of lands in the Ponca Indian reservation, particularly describing said lands.
That Megreedy in the year 1899, subleased said lands to J. B. Macklin, and attaches a copy of the lease; that Macklin continued in the possession of said lands after the expiration of said lease, and planted said lands in corn and wheat; that under the terms of said lease Megreedy was entitled to one-half the wheat when threshed; that Sylvester Flitch claimed an interest in said wheat; that defendants, Macklin and Flitch, refused on demand to deliver said wheat; that defendants are insolvent, and are selling the wheat, and prays judgment against the defendants for the value of the wheat sold, for an injunction, for a receiver, and for judgment for one-half of the wheat remaining or its value.
On August 4, 1900, an injunction was granted by the probate judge of Noble county.
On September 3, 1900, the defendants filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, and on the same day defendants filed their answer containing first a general denial, except admitting the sub-letting of the premises in 1899, as alleged in the petition, and second, setting up the fact that the lands sub-leased were Indian lands, and held by Megreedy under an Indian lease approved by the Indian agent, the commissioner of Indian affairs, and the secretary of the interior, and that the sub-leasing had not been so approved; that said defendants were in possession of said premises under and by virtue of a purchase of the lease of Megreedy from William R. McDonald, as his administrator, paying therefor the sum of three hundred dollars, and the instalment of rent due on said lease from the estate of William R. Megreedy amounting to $ 371; that said $ 371 was used by the administrator in discharging and paying the debts of the estate.
On September 8, 1900, the court modified the injunction so as to permit the wheat to be threshed and stored.
On Sept. 13, 1900, plaintiff filed his reply, setting up that the sale of said lease was never approved by the probate court; that he received the three hundred dollars; that the contract of sale was rescinded, and money repaid by being deposited in the bank and notifying Flitch thereof.
On the 26th day of February, 1901, the death of Sylvester Flitch was suggested, and on application of the plaintiff, the cause was revived in the name of Dollie Flitch. A jury being waived by all parties, the case came on to be heard by the court. On the trial of the cause the defendants objected to the introduction of any evidence on the part of the plaintiff for the reason that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which objection was overruled and exception reserved.
On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the Indian leases to the land described in the petition, which leases contained the following provision:
"That he will not at any time during the period for which said land and premises are herein leased, assign, lease, convey or transfer any of his or their estate, interest or term, or any part thereof in the same, or the appurtenances thereto, or sub-let the same to any person or persons whomsoever, without the consent thereto of the party of the first part in writing, being first obtained, and the same approved by the secretary of the interior.
The cause was tried on the 14th day of June, 1901, and on the following day the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff filed motion for a new trial on the 18th day of June, 1901, and on the 29th day of the same month it was overruled by the court, to which judgment and the overruling of the motion for a new trial, exceptions were saved, and the cause is brought here for review. Affirmed.
Error from the District Court of Noble County; before Bayard T. Hainer, Trial Judge.
C. A. Morris and George S. Green, for plaintiffs in error.
Diggs & Cress, for defendants in error.
IRWIN J.:
¶1 The sole grounds on which reversal is asked is that the district court erred in holding that the sub-leasing of the lands without the consent of the secretary of the interior was illegal and void. Plaintiff in error claimed the law to be that as the defendants were tenants of the plaintiff, and had enjoyed peaceable possession of the premises, they were estopped from disputing their landlords' title, and many...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holden v. Lynn
...to his corn bought from the lessee. In support of this contention, he cites Light v. Conover, 10 Okla. 732, 63 P. 966; Megreedy v. Macklin, 12 Okla. 666, 73 P. 293; and Williams v. Steinmetz, 16 Okla. 104, 89 P. 986. Light v. Conover and Megreedy v. Macklin hold that, when an Indian lease d......
-
Wattenbarger v. Hall
...contends the defendant should not be permitted to defend under such void contract. Under the authority of Megreedy & McDonald, Adm'rs, v. Macklin et al., 12 Okla. 666, 73 P. 293, the contract of rental, as alleged by the defendant, was void and could not be enforced by either party thereto.......
-
Pruitt v. Carter
...if insisted upon, is erroneous. See Muskogee Land Co. v. Mullins, 165 F. 179, 91 C. C. A. 213, 16 Ann. Cas. 387; McGreevy v. Macklin et al., 12 Okla. 666, 73 P. 293. We maintain that the presumption is that the land outside of the incorporated towns on the Indian Territory side of the state......
-
Dodder v. Moberly
...Secretary of the Interior the contract or sublease was void, under which he could not be heard to assert property rights. Megreedy v. Macklin, 12 Okla. 666, 73 P. 293; Reeves v. Sheets, 16 Okla. 342, 82 P. 487; Mayes v. Live Stock Ass'n, 58 Kan. 712, 51 P. 215. But to the doctrine that ther......