Case Name: VANDERVORT et al. v. WILSON et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1924-05-13
Citations: 99 Okla. 178
Docket Number: No. 13693
Parties: VANDERVORT et al. v. WILSON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 178–178

Head Matter:
VANDERVORT et al. v. WILSON et al.
No. 13693
Opinion Filed May 13, 1924.
Case Followed.
The syllabus in this case is the same as adopted in case No. 11456, F, A. Gillespie v. Emely Wilson et al., 101 Okla. 62, 221 Pae. 82, in which th^ opinion was filed July 24, 1923.
(Syllabus by Foster, C.)
Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5.
Error from District Court, Marshall County; George S. Marsh, Judge.
Action by Emely Wilson, nee Peter, and another, against John G. Gillard et al., for possession of rents and profits and to remove cloud from title. Judgment for plaintiffs, and J. W. Vandervort, C. A. Vander-vort, and John G. Gillard bring error.
Rej-versed and remanded with directions.
Don Welch, for plaintiffs in error.
Cornelius Hardy, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
FOSTER, C.
This action was commenced by Emely Wilson, nee Peter, and Richardson Peter for possession of rents and profits and to quiet their title) to certain lands in Marshall county, Okla. This is a companion to the case of F. A. Gillespie v. Emely Wilson et al., No. 11456, decided by this court in an opinion by Mr. Justice McNeill, filed on July 24, 1923, 103 Okla. 62, 221 Pac. 82. The two cases concern different portions of the surplus allotment of Mingo Impunnubbeej, a full-blood Choctaw Indian, and the plaintiffs in error in this ease claim under the same instrument in controversy in the other case. The questions are identical with those presented in th^ case of Gillespie v. Wilson et al., supra, and the questions determined in that case aré decisive of this case.
It is our opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to render judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in error for costs and quieting their title to the real estate in controversy as against the claims of the defendants in error as prayed for in their answer.
By the Court: It is so ordered.