The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-11-10
PONCA CITY LAND DECISION
History of a Case OF Legal Importance
as Precedent.

Guthrie, o. T., Nov. 9.-Considerable
speculation is being INDUCED in as to the
probable effect of the recent decision Of
the territorial supreme court upon the
pending suit of the United States to set
aside the patent of James W. Lynch for
the 100 acres Of land on which consid-
cradle portion of Ponca City is built.
The suit just decided In the territorial
supreme court was the ouIgrowth of
squabble among the principal stock hold
ers Of the Ponca City Land Improvement
company over a division Of the property.
Subsequent to what was thought to be
an amicable division, B. S. Barnes and
!. w. Lynch had a personal difficulty and
Barnes then brought suit for another
slice Of the property, which was decided
against him, and the present decision is
the result Of a motion for a rehearing
Ex-Mayor James Gordon, Of Ponea City,
who was here today, in an interview said
that the decision was received with sat
isfaction by the property owners OF Ponce
City, who are anxious that the litigation
should close, in order that the cloud to
their titles might be removed. The opin-
ion Of the territorial supreme court was
written by Judge NcAtee and is quite
voluminous, but the syllabus, which is
here reproduced, gives the main points
decided
l. When an action is tried before a
district judge and time given to make
case, and the term of office of the judge
expires during the time fixed for making
the case. he may settle and sign the case
after going out of office, although at
the time he retired from office no time
had been fixed for settling and signing
the case Section SCI, Code Civil procedure
authorizes an ex-judge to settle and
sign a case If. at the time Of his retire
ment from office, either the time for
making and serving the case had not ex-
pired or, If it had expired, the retire
ment of the Judge, was pending the
time fixed for settling and signing the
case.
. When one state adopts the statute
of another, il adopts anly the construc- .
ton placed thereon by the courts of the .
latter state which have been rendered .
before the adoption of the statute.
3. II was claimed in the present case, s
and evidence was rendered to show, that 4
a large amount of money had been ad- .
ranced by the plaintiffs for the acquisi-
ton Of the land contended for, which
testimony was. under the Issues Of the +
case properly refused by .the trial court
The issues in this cause having been de-
against the plaintiff IN The trial
court. the plaintiffs appealed 10 this
court IN this proceeding and at the same
time, by a supplemental petition asked
from the trial court for a referee who
would ascertain the facts and make a !
recommendation to the court as TO the
amount Of money so advanced by the
plaintiffs. and that this procee ding under
a supplemental petition. should be taken
only in the event OF an unfavorable de-
termination in this court upon appeal
and that in this event also the plaintiffs
might have relief by way os compensation
put of the land contended for here, 10.
the expenditures SO claimed 70 have been
made by them. The relief sought by the
supplemental petition was not the relief
sought in the petition IN this case. Evil
hence wa srefused at the trial i'm support
# H. No wrong could be done by permit
ing the application for relief made in
he supplemental petition. and the plant
us We're not osyoppei from taking THIS
appeal by reason of asking for the relief
sought In the supplemental petition.
which va SONY sought upon condition
hat this appeal should result aufavo~a-
pa 10 them
4. \ person cannot legally purchase on
lis own account that which his duty or
rust requires him to sell on account of
mother nor purchase on account Of an
3