The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1919-06-20
FAMOUS LOLLY JACK
CUSHING OIL FIELD
CASE IS REVERSED
SUPREME COURT ALSO PASSES ON
MANY OTHER CASES OF IN
TEREST IN STATE

Oklahoma City, June l9.-The IA
nous Lolly Jack case, involving tltle
TO land In the heart of the Gushing
oil field, was reversed and remanded
by the state supreme court In an
opinion by Justice sharp Tuesday
The title of the case is voluminous'
being styled George w. Garfield and
- others, plaintiffs In error, ys. Lolly
Jack and about so others, The suit
involved title to land originally the
property of Susie Crow, fullblood
Creek Indian child. deceased The
supreme court held that the trial court
was In error in decreeing Ira II. Cor
nelus to be the owner in fee simple
Of the land and the decree In favor oi
Cornelius was reversed and the case
remanded to the district court of
Creek county. Justice Rainey wrote
dissenting opinion. The pleadings
and exhibits in this case comprised Gs4
typewriter pages.
The case of Lusanna Brink VS.
George W. Garfield ct al, being ~
minor heirs and their guardians, "A
Creek county case, was reversed in
part and remanded to quiet title TO
| Inherited allotted lands.
In the case Of w. c. Bentley vs. The
zelma Oil Co, ct al. Tulsa county
action, the court handed down an
opinion reversing and remanding the
trail courts decision This is a suit
Of Bentley and thirteen other minor
ity stockholders of the Hcma Com
pany in which suit was brought against |
The Zelma OH Co.. The Almez Oil |
Co, The Memo Oil Co, and II. b. |
Houghton, president and manager of
all of the said corporations to cancel
certain well drilling contract and |
assignments of an oil and gas lease
for fraud. The contract for drilling
was made with one Max Moore. The
assignments of a lease in which fraud
was alleged involved a lease belonging
to the Zema Company which was as
signed George Houghton, vice presi-
dent, TO III. Il. Houghton, trustee, then
to the Alme2 Company, and then to
The Memo Company by Houghton and
was claimed as the property of the
Memo Company when the suit was
brought.
Other Decisions
r. A. Nose VS. Oren Sheldon Penny
a minor affirmed in part and reversed
in part, a Grady county action. In
the syllabus the court says: Where a
guardian wrongfully sold his wards
land but never recovered the purchase
money. the guardians deed was not
rendered void but voidable"
Moline Plow Co., vs. W. r. Adair,
Carter county, reversed and remand
I'd. The syllabus says: Where parties
TO Il contract of sale Stipulate what
course shall he taken by the vendec
in the event the warranty fails such
provision must be followed by the ven.
dee in seeking to enforse the guaran.
zee.
j. II. Murphy VS.. +. j. and Sadie
Estle, Woodward county; reversed and
remanded; syllabus: A qualified in.
lorsement constitutes the indorser a
mere assignor of the title TO the nstru- I
ment. 1t may be made by adding to {
the indorser's signature the words ;
without recourse" or any words of q
similar import. Such an Endorsement t
does not impair the negotiable char. {
acter of the instrument. t
The Mortgage and Debenture Co. I
VS.. Julia Christian Burrows, ct al. Gar.
vim county, affirmed syllabus Lands a
allotted to ChoctaW Indian Of one quar-. a
ter blood are not subject to sale on o
execution after she becomes of age il
20 satisfy n Judgment rendered against -
her after reaching her majority upon
an Indebtedness incurred before reach
ng the age of eighteen years.
j. /. Hu1sop n II,,l.;,,.
county treasurer of Usage county. af.
lirmed, The question involved was
whether at the death of an Usage In.
nan his homestead allotment becomes
taxable and in the syllabus the court
says: But for the Act of Congress
1f April is, 1912, the plaintiffs in err
or could not have purchased the land
n question. They took the land sub.
ect to the conditions of that act.
Which provides that nothing therein
'hall be construed to exempt any of
said property from taxation Having
purchased the land, by virtue of this
'ct, containing said proviso they can.
lot claim in the Usage allotment act.
". Is. and Rose kee VS.. Armstrong.
'yrd Co.. Oklahoma county, reversed
ma refnanded. This is an action for
'pel on an article printed in the Daily
Nov. % 1905. in which
lrs. kee said: 81 have a 500 bond
rom the Armstrong Byrd Co. that I
Viii give to anyone that can use il [
ought a piano there and when l show
d my bond they refused to accept it
Without | would add $50 to the price
paid it, The company recovered
rom the KEGS in the lower court. but