The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1897-01-13

Judgment ana rulings OF JuuEe MI
gore upon the many vital questions
affecting the interests of non-citizens
owning improvements upon land
under contract in the Chickasaw |
Nation:
OPINION or THE COURT.
Chief Justice Springer:
The contract from Albert Wolf to
appellants, relied upon by them, was
in violation of the laws Of the Chicka-
saw Nation with reference to the
leasing of lands by its citizens to
non-citizens. But it is contended on
behalf of appellants that as between
them and the appellee the maxims,
"In pari delictu, melior est cond:tio
possidentis, - and "In pari delictu,
portion est conditio defendentis'' y
apply. Were Albert Wolf the party
adverse to appellants in this action,
this contention would be well found
ed. In law he could not take advan-
tage of his own wrong and set up the
inegality of his lease against his
lessee. Should he regain possession
of the leased premises by force, the
law would give a remedy against
him. Should stranger seek TO
avail himself of the illegality of the
contract by invading the possession
of the lessee, and thereafter averring
the invalidity Of the lease, he would
be met with the principle that the
sovereignty, and not an individual
shall vindicate the infraction OF pub
lie law. But appellee was not a
party to the lease relied upon; she
can not be affected by its provisions
unless the facts estop her TO aver its
inegality Snch an estoppel never
arises. il is unnecessary TO de
termine whether the facts of this
record would have been sufficient TO
cstop her from showing her para
mount title had the lease from Albert
Wolf to appellants been in conform
ity with law. 1t was not in conform
ity with law, and it is fundamental
that no one can estop himself to
prove facts which show a contract tC
which he is not party to be oppos-
ed to law or public policy. Green
hood Public Policy, lis.
1t follows, therefore, that whether
the court overruled the plea oi
estoppel or demurrer, or heard proof
upon such plea. as the record
shows, its conclusion was correct
that the facts as TO such estoppei die
not constitute a defense.
On December 5, 1895, appellee filed
a petition in the court below prayinl
the court to correct an erroneous
recital in the judgment which haC
heretofore been entered, and on the
fourth day Of January, 1896, the pre-
siding judge granted the prayer o
the petition, and made the correc
ton. Such correction consisted il
showing that the court heard evi
dence upon the plea of estoppe
heretofore considered. This amended
judgment was duly certified to thi
court. AS we have held that il tn,
court did uOt sustain the demurre
! he should have done SO, cOnsidera
= ton of this question is not necessar,
to n disposition of this appeal, but
as it presents a matter of practice
is not improper to determine il.
Appellants counsel insist that tn
amendment of ithe judgment wa
made in vacation and that, therefore
this court should disregard it. The.
: contend that as the regular term be
gan at Ardmore on the first Monda,
in October, and the regular term a
Pauls Valley on the second Monda.
, i'm December, there could be no ad
iournment term of the Ardmor
: court after the holding OF a court a
Pauls Valley. We are of the opinioi
that the court had the right to nd
} journ to a day past the time of bold