Baxter Springs news. [volume] (Baxter Springs, Kan.) 1882-1919, 1910-10-06

made are, by mutual consent. can
celed, annulled, and abrogated. i
Is for q lawful purpose and term
Does the fact of a former lease, Of
assignment thereof, disQualify the
parties from making this leasei
Certainly II the allottee could make
the former lease. he could agree with
the lessee that 1t might be Cancelled
and annulled. cannot agree with
the contention that, having made the
lease for the term OF ten years, the
lottee's hands are tied, and he can
not enter an agreement modifying
or canceling the first lease. during
its term. But for the assignment to
the Iowa & Oklahoma Mining Com
pany, whereby that company had &C
Quired rights under the first lease.
I am Of the opinion that this second
lease would have annuled the first
lease, and would have given the
lessee the same rights Hereunder as
II no former lease had been made.
Passing to the lease of March rs,
1906, to Jones & Thompson this
lease was for a lawful purpose and
period. It was made subject to the
first Abrams lease. It does not APP
pear that the lessees Jones & Thomp-
son are in any way connected with
Abrams or the Mining Company.
The question is presented whether
the allottee may while he has one
outstanding lease, make another
lease to another lessee, which does
not exceed the lawful term, so that
the second lessee may enjoy that
portion of his term beyond the ter
minatIon of the first lease, such an
agreement might be made between
white persons and so long as such
lease is for one Of the purposes pro-
vided in the Act and not for a long
er term than that prescribed, the
term beginning with or near the date
of the lease, see no reason why 1t
may not be validity made by the al
lottee. 1t will be noted that the
lease to Jones and Thompson is to
run from date hereof until March
25th, 1916" ten years; so that there
is not presented the case Of an over
tapping lease which is to begin to
run in the future and the term OF
which, considered with the term Of
q prior existing lease, amount to-
gether to a longer time than the al
lottee is permitted to tie up his land
by lease. Whitman vs.. Lehmer, SO
Pac. S5l. / think the Jones &
Thompson lease was at the time OF
its execution, so far as is shown by
the bill, a valid lease, subject to the
unexpired term Of any valid existing
lease previously made by the allot-
tee. II during the existence OF ten
year lease, the allottee should make
a second lease to the first lessee or
to another for a term Of ten years,
to begin at the expiration Of the FIRST
term, that, think, would be q viola
ton of the law, for the unexpired
term and the term of second lease
would, together, amount to more
than ten years. But where, as in
this case, the ten year term Of the
second lease runs from the date OF
its execution, so that the land is not
tied up by either or both leases for
a longer term in the future than the
law prescribes, there is no violation
of the leasing act.
Now, taking up the lease of April
4, 1905, to the Iowa & Oklahoma
Mining Company: This lease is for
mining purposes, and is limited to,
ten years. There is, therefore, moth
ing on its face to suggest invalldlty,
and were this the first appearance Of
this lessee, it would be in the atti-
tuae of the lessees Jones & ThOmp-
son, just considered. But It appears
that at the time this lease was made,
this lessee has taken from the les
see Abrams an assignment Of each
of the leases he had taken from the
allottee. Assuming that one or the
other of the Abrams leases was vail
i'd and in force and assignable, then
the Mining Company owned and was
entitled to enjoy the unexpired term
of such lease. In either event, such
unexpired term was still running
when this lease was made. II BY
the terms of this lease the former
leases under which the Mining Com
pany claimed had been expressly am
nulled, then there would be pre-
sented the question considered In re-