White v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co.

Decision Date03 January 1944
Docket NumberNo. 2698.,2698.
Citation139 F.2d 103
PartiesWHITE et al. v. SINCLAIR PRAIRIE OIL CO. et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Hiram P. White, of Pawhuska, Okl. (Charles A. Coakley and G. Ellis Gable, both of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.

Summers Hardy and Paul B. Mason, both of Tulsa, Okl. (Edward H. Chandler and W. H. McBrayer, both of Tulsa, Okl., McCoy, Craig & Pearson, of Pawhuska, Okl., and H. G. Ross, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

John A. Bruno and Mary Vieux were married on February 26, 1892. They were members of the Citizen Band of Pottawatomie Indians. On September 16, 1891, 320 acres of land situated in Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, were allotted to John and a trust patent therefor was issued to him on January 19, 1892. Included therein was the south half of the northwest quarter of Section 25, Township 7 North, Range 4 East of I. M. A trust patent was also issued to Mary covering an allotment to her of 120 acres of land. Each patent contained a provision that the United States would hold the land in trust for a period of 25 years, in accordance with the requirements of the General Allotment Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, § 5, 25 U.S.C.A. § 348.

The Act of August 15, 1894, 28 Stat. 286, 295, provided that a member of the Pottawatomie Band, over 21 years of age, to whom a trust patent had been issued under the provisions of the General Allotment Act, might sell and convey any portion of the land embraced in such patent in excess of 80 acres, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary might prescribe.

On March 19, 1903, John executed a deed running to Mary covering the south half of the northwest quarter of Section 25. The deed was approved by the Acting Secretary of the Interior on November 21, 1903, and was duly recorded in the records of Pottawatomie County on March 2, 1904.

On July 23, 1903, the Acting Secretary canceled the original patent issued to John. On June 22, 1904, new trust patents were issued, one to John for the north half, and one to Mary for the south half, of the northwest quarter of Section 25.

On February 5, 1904, and March 14, 1904, respectively, the Brunos executed two mortgages to George G. Boggs, covering the south half of the northwest quarter of Section 25. On February 12, 1910, and June 4, 1910, judgments were entered in the superior court of Pottawatomie County decreeing the foreclosure of such mortgages. The land covered by the mortgages was sold at foreclosure sale and sheriff's deeds therefor were issued to M. C. Getzelman. Thereafter, M. C. Getzelman conveyed it to B. C. Getzelman.

On June 8, 1925, W. H. Desmond, as lessor, executed and delivered to the Prairie Oil and Gas Company,1 as lessee, an oil and gas lease on the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 25. The lease reserved a one-eighth royalty in the lessor. Prairie thereafter assigned the lease to Sinclair Prairie Oil Company.2 The name of Prairie was changed to The Commonwealth Oil & Gas Company.

On July 22, 1926, B. C. Getzelman and Jennie Getzelman, his wife, C. E. Wells and Minnie F. Wells, his wife, and M. W. Janes, as lessors, executed and delivered to Omer McKown, as lessee, an oil and gas lease on the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 25. It reserved a one-eighth royalty in the lessors. McKown assigned the lease to Mid-Kansas Oil and Gas Company.3 On August 25, 1934, Mid-Kansas changed its name to Marathon Oil Company, and on October 6, 1936, Marathon was dissolved and its interest in the lease was assigned to Ohio Oil Company.4

Each lease contained the following provision:

"If said lessor owns a less interest in the above described land than the entire and undivided fee simple estate therein, then the royalties and rentals herein provided shall be paid the lessor only in the proportion which his interest bears to the whole undivided fee."

Wells were drilled on the leases in 1928 and large quantities of oil have been produced therefrom by Sinclair and Ohio and their predecessors in interest.

On September 22, 1928, the Brunos, Mid-Kansas, and Prairie entered into a compromise agreement. The agreement recites that Mary claims title to the south half of the northwest quarter of Section 25, and that such claim is denied by Prairie and Mid-Kansas, and that Prairie and Mid- Kansas are willing, in order to avoid litigation, to settle and compromise such claim, in so far as "it involves or affects the validity" of such oil and gas leases. It provides that in consideration of $8,000.00, to be paid by Prairie and Mid-Kansas to Mary, "it is agreed that said Mary Bruno, joined by her husband, John A. Bruno, and by their attorney, Claude Hendon, does hereby ratify, adopt and approve said oil and gas leases so held by said Companies as fully as though she and they had originally executed such leases at the date of the execution thereof and for the considation paid therefor; so that they or either of them will have no further claim of any kind or character, except as to royalty to be paid under said leases, as against said Companies, or either of them, after the execution hereof." It provides that such additional conveyances and acquittances shall be executed as may be necessary to render the agreement fully effective, including the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

On March 14, 1930, the Brunos executed a further instrument which recites that the Brunos, Mid-Kansas, and Ohio entered into the agreement of September 22, 1928, whereby the Brunos "agreed to ratify, adopt and approve a certain oil and gas lease, which was claimed to have been held by the said Mid-Kansas Oil and Gas Company and Prairie Oil and Gas Company, the same as though she Mary and they had originally executed said lease at the time of the execution thereof and for the consideration paid therefor so that they or either of them would never have further claim to said lease of any kind or character except as to royalty to be paid under said lease."

It provides that the Brunos for and in consideration of $8,000.00 cash in hand paid do "hereby ratify, adopt, and approve" the Desmond lease of June 8, 1925, to Prairie, "said Prairie Oil and Gas Company to have and to hold said lease, free and clear of any claims or demands of the said Mary Bruno and John A. Bruno, their heirs or assigns the same and as fully as though they or either of them had originally executed said lease at the time of the execution thereof and for the consideration paid therefor so that they or either of them will have no further claim of any kind or character as against the Prairie Oil and Gas Company except as to royalty to be paid under said lease which royalties amount to one-eighth (1/8) of the oil produced from said lease the said John A. Bruno and Mary Bruno expressly reserves unto themselves, their heirs and assigns." By a like provision in such instrument the Brunos ratified, adopted, and approved the Getzelman lease of July 22, 1926, as between the Brunos and Mid-Kansas. Such instrument was not executed either by Prairie or Mid-Kansas.

The instrument of March 14, 1930, was approved by the Secretary of the Interior on May 2, 1930.

The Brunos commenced an action in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, against M. C. Getzelman and B. C. Getzelman to recover the possession of the south half of the northwest quarter of such Section 25, to cancel the two decrees in foreclosure, and to quiet the title to such land in them. From an adverse judgment, they appealed to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. On appeal (Bruno v. Getzelman, 70 Okl. 143, 173 P. 850, decided June 11, 1918) the Supreme Court held that the deed to the south half of the northwest quarter of Section 25, when approved by the Secretary of the Interior, vested the land in Mary, free from restrictions against alienation, that she had full power to execute the mortgages, and that the trust patent issued to Mary in 1894 did not reimpose restrictions, and affirmed the judgment below.

On November 2, 1933, the United States commenced an action in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma against B. C. Getzelman, Desmond, Mid-Kansas, Sinclair, Prairie, and others to establish Mary's title to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Uranium Antitrust Litigation, In re
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 15 Febrero 1980
    ...for relief into two separate actions. McConnell v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 346 F.2d 219, 222 (5th Cir. 1965); White v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co., 139 F.2d 103 (10th Cir. 1943). Also, actions involving joint obligations at common law could not be split. Once the plaintiff secured a judgment ......
  • United States v. Jim Utah v. Jim 1509 71 1612
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 20 Noviembre 1972
    ...L.Ed.2d 350. The devices for doing the Indians in, when it comes to royalties in gas or oil lands, are numerous. See White v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co., 10 Cir., 139 F.2d 103. But the owners of oil and gas interests (whether those interests be legal or equitable) normally have an interest se......
  • State of Oklahoma v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 10 Mayo 1946
    ...56 L.Ed. 820; Vinson v. Graham, 10 Cir., 44 F.2d 772, certiorari denied 283 U.S. 819, 51 S.Ct. 344, 75 L.Ed. 1435; White v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co., 10 Cir., 139 F.2d 103, certiorari denied 322 U.S. 760, 64 S.Ct. 1278, 88 L.Ed. 1588. But in the absence of notice served in accordance with s......
  • Brickel v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming
    • 29 Diciembre 1961
    ...1244; United States v. Sinclair Refining Co., 10 C.A., 1942, 126 F.2d 827; White et al. v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. et al., 10 C.A., 1943, 139 F.2d 103, cert. den. 322 U.S. 760, 64 S.Ct. 1278, 88 L.Ed. 1588, reh. den. 323 U.S. 810, 65 S.Ct. 29, 89 L.Ed. 646; Martin v. Brodrick, 10 C.A., 194......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT