The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1901-07-17
SUPREME COURT
Syllabi Of Opinions by
Judge MCAtee

rae following are the eyilahi OF opniohs
kanSed down by Judge McAtee at the
iast tofm of the Supreme Court
No l0i1.
Be- the Supreme Court Of the Territory
sr Oklahoma
aveus,us rettyiohn. ct ux plaintiffs IN
rrror
ramos a. Wllkn. defendant in error
SYLLABUS
D. pcuyjohn being indebted to many
'srrsopa ana 'nsolvenL mupe a g.nCIl as-
sigumcht ana anerwnrd made aa egrcc-
sent with wlkn whereby Wilhn agreed
10 settle pcttyjohu's indebtedness and
mcreupou te subrogatcd to uh of the
sights o. the creditors Co whom such pay-
nsuis should be made. and thereafter
ihcy cncoted settlement between each
sther iy which NWndu took W953o for
ne claims VIA ch he had bought the SUM
nrfudng however. one hundred dollars
10 be- pad f3r legal services and five
suudrcd dol ars go clmponaatc Wlku for
services rendered ia taking charge of the
property. selling the stock, collecting the
-rnts and TO cover his proht
Special findings of fact were made
~ tho idry, 90 which they held that the
Eransaction was not merely loan
Nat the contract was not an usurous
Sue. and returned general verdict rn
nYor Of Wnkin.
meIu That since the evidence tends to
skoN uat the contract was net "a urous.
and that the special and general findings
- thc jury were 20 that effect. the ver-
set viii u, De disturbed here
sc ega
gu the supr,me Court OF the Territory
q oklahota
D. Me"onl'd plaintiff in error
charcs Cl pentcr. defendant in error
SYLLABUS.
rhe statute which provides that Zoo
On action for rn attorney es may be
rnyed by be- court aud ln which the
apurt Is not Limited 70 hx thc attorney 81
ies only when such fee SHAH Doe named
10 the veraot and when the verdict doc
sat state ttat Il found 10 consideration
n personal services, is not violated
Khon the court fixes the attorneys fees
bonn The pieaolrgs and evidence which
show that he action was brought and the
ysrdict WAS rendered, for work, labor and
psrsonai services.
y The points now contended for I'm
hc brief were not raised upon motion for
q new trial nor presented 20 the trial
rourt FOR review at an. And the defend
sm IN error was entitled upon these
grounds. 10 have the cause dismissed
No 9i7
la the Supreme Court of the Tcrrlto..
~ Oklahoma.
The Long Bell Lumber Company plain
in Ia error.
&c.
~ Martin defcHdan: IN error.
SYLLABUS
D. The lands Of the Cherokee outlet
Eere opened on September 18th 1883. TO
settlement and private acquisition under
Ae homestead laNs Of the United States
soar days thereafter. on the 2tOh Of Sep
a,mber. various settlers. under the as
rVnaed organization of the Ponca Town
f&e Company, occupied the quarter sec
hon 0f land including the lots involved IN
ms controversy, and undertook TO divide
q into lots. blocks streets and alleys.
Go dte or right wan ever acquired from
zoe government by ethe- the said COM
gany or the settlers and claimants there
suder An the acts OF the said Ponca
'xsNnait Company ana OF the settlers
sud claimants under H. We're wholly w
~ authority and void, rs against pub
kc policy.
Such on appropriation and occupancy
aoes not constitute am adverse tide 10
Mud - viii Ont tle occupant 20 any legal
teff
~ the Statutes OF 1888. which provides
mat Every grant OF real property
sther thln that made by the Territory. or
xndes judicial sale In void. n az the tine
- the delivery thereof, said property Is
- the actual possession Of the person
slAiming undr "A title adverse to that OF
- sysntor
2 A deed introduced by the defend
gat in error as exhibiting one step in
8is chain OF title. purportlng upon It's
iars 20 bc made by Harry c. G. stiles,
Esa IN fact executed by Dane " stiles
%. attorney In fact The introduction
Htx ahJeottd % gehcra.g al the uur,.
R'sn the ground OF Tnc0mpetency r.
sslsy sncy and immnterialiu Boz hc
sAiection thus made in rouora. tlms
lnSi court 20 the objection argued here:
1hss is. that no authority was shown iu
0zria y stiles, 20 execute the said
fe0a as attorney in fact. and since
las R,tcnuon Of the court was not called
10 sha point below, the objection win not
b. % stained here, having becn specihcal-
" raiFod for the nrst time In this court.
Fhc defendant ls mere trespasser
Ehs relation Of landlord and tenant never
rrA4trd in the ease. The case as one of
rapSNon OF land without color of title,
aai that fact would not prevent the plain
Hn from recovering damages in this ac-
i6on Nmply because il was averred an the
Puiiiion that the measure of his damages
q she value OF the use and occupancy OF
'As pEemises during the period sued for
nie-oe a has been declared In this court
uAot the rental value OF the premises
llnsius the time the party Is forcibly and
taaaS fully kept out OF possession. Is the