United States v. Dunn
| Decision Date | 28 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | 6027,6028. |
| Citation | 288 F. 158 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. DUNN et al. BULL HEAD OIL CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
W. A Ledbetter, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl (Frank Lee, U.S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl., and Ledbetter Stuart, Bell & Ledbetter, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for the United States and others.
George S. Ramsey, of Muskogee, Okl., and W. G. Davisson, of Ardmore Okl. (W. B. Johnson, of Ardmore, Okl., Edgar A. De
Meules, of Tulsa, Okl., and Malcolm E. Rosser and Villard Martin, both of Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for Dunn, Bull Head Oil Co., and others.
Before LEWIS, Circuit Judge, and POLLOCK and SYMES, District Judges.
This suit was begun in September, 1919, to cancel an oil and gas lease given to Dunn and Gillam by the guardian and the curator of Allie Daney, a minor full-blood Choctaw Indian. The lease bears date August 19, 1913, and was signed at that time by A. N. Tomas as guardian. In January following it was signed by J. J. Eaves as curator. Eaves had given a lease to J. S. Mullen on the forty acres and other lands belonging to the minor, in August, 1913. Thomas and Eaves each claimed the right to represent the minor. Eaves had been appointed her curator by the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indian Territory in November, 1905, and on statehood that court transmitted the curatorship record to the county court of Love County. Thomas was appointed her guardian by the county court of Leflore County in July, 1911. The county court of Love County approved the lease given by Eaves, and the county court of Leflore County the one given by Thomas. The two leases came to the Indian Superintendent for his recommendation for approval by the Secretary of the Interior at about the same time, and that brought on a controversy between Dunn and Gillam and Mullen as to whether Thomas or Eaves represented the minor and had authority to give a lease. The superintendent declined to pass upon the question pressed on both sides with apparent merit, and finally recommended that the lessees in the two leases compromise the question by each taking a half-interest and procuring the signature of both Thomas and Eaves to one lease. At first the parties were unable to agree, but on the superintendent's notification that he would recommend that neither lease be approved his suggestion was accepted. Oil wells were being drilled near the tract, and all interested parties realized that the land would be drained of any oil that might be under it unless it was speedily developed. Eaves then signed the lease given by Thomas. During the controversy between Dunn and Gillam and Mullen developments in the vicinity of the 40-acre tract were being made. The superintendent visited the field. He wanted the Daney land protected from drainage. He told the contending parties that it made no difference to him whether Eaves signed the Dunn and Gillam lease or Thomas signed the Mullen lease. The Bull Head Oil Company was organized and the lease assigned to it, on agreement that the lessees would take for their interest an equal amount of stock. Its capital was fixed at $18,000. An additional five acres adjoining the tract, not belonging to the minor, was taken into the company. The lessees each took 8,000 shares and the parties who put in the adjoining five acres were compensated out of the remaining 2,000. The lease and its assignment were approved by the secretary. Operations under the lease resulted in large production of oil. In addition to a royalty of 12 1/2 per cent. of the gross proceeds of all crude oil extracted to be paid to the minor or her representative under the Thomas lease the superintendent, after examination concluded that $2,000 should be exacted as a bonus for the lease, and this was paid. The complaint joined as defendants with the Bull Head Oil Company, Dunn and Gillam and their wives, Mullen and others who were stockholders in the company. It charged that the lease was voidable because, as it was alleged, Thomas the guardian, had reserved a secret interest in it, and it not only prayed that the lease be canceled but that the defendants be held to account for all oil and gas that had been taken under it, and that the minor be adjudged to be the owner of all the company's stock. On trial the court found, and there was evidence to sustain the finding, that Thomas, under a secret agreement which he made with Dunn and Gillam, had reserved an interest in the lease. It was shown that they later paid him $3,500 and gave him a Saxon automobile for that interest. The court, however, further found that Eaves was the minor's legal curator, that Thomas was not her guardian and that Eaves' execution of the lease which had been theretofore signed by Thomas, and its approval by the county (probate) court of Love County rendered it a valid instrument, when later approved by the secretary. It further found that the agreement between Dunn and Gillam and Thomas constituted legal fraud on the part of defendants Dunn and Gillam, but that it was not actionable because Thomas was without authority and power to give a lease; and thereupon it dismissed the bill.
After appeal was taken the plaintiff settled the controversy with all defendants except the defendant Dunn and his wife, who had received some of the stock as a gift from her husband, and the defendant Gillam and his wife, who had received some of the stock from her husband. Appellees, Dunn and wife and Gillam and wife, move to dismiss the appeal. A copy of the settlement agreement, bearing the approval of the secretary and one of the assistant attorneys general, accompanies the motion, from which it appears that it was made on the agreement of the Bull Head Oil Company to pay $45,000 to the minor and $12,500 to plaintiff's attorneys as their fees for their services in the cause to the date of settlement, and in consideration thereof it was agreed that--
'the United States will neither ask nor insist upon a reversal of said cause or a recovery against the Bull Head Oil Company or against any of the defendants in said cause, save...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Dunn
...of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma dismissing the bill of the plaintiff—the appellant here. 288 F. 158. Suit was begun to cancel an oil and gas lease of 40 acres of land, given to appellees Dunn and Gillam, by Thomas, guardian, and signed by Eave......
-
Harjo v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co.
...action, it had authority to bind the Indians. Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 415, 32 S. Ct. 424, 56 L. Ed. 820; United States v. Dunn et al. (C. C. A.) 288 F. 158. The United States was not a party to the suit in the district court of Seminole county, but the United States employed the......
-
Hampton v. Ewert
...the lease of an allottee after his death, notwithstanding the provision of section 9 of the act of May 27, 1908. And again, in United States v. Dunn, 288 F. 158, we held that: "A compromise and settlement, made by the United States, through which it received moneys for a minor Indian, had t......
-
Markwell v. LOCAL# 978, UNITED BRO. OF CARPENTERS, ETC.
...the present defendants. The rule and rationale of those two decisions were again applied by the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Dunn, 8th Cir., 1923, 288 F. 158, in a case in which a settlement with several, but not all, the joint tortfeasors was made after judgment and pending appeal. S......