Графични страници
PDF файл
[ocr errors]


Five Civilized Tribes, as of the age of 8, court rendered judgment in favor of plainyears, that thereafter, while married and tiff. under the age of 18 years, she, with her hus- The issue presented being identical with band, executed certain conveyances to the that of the Spalding Case, and no sufficient defendants named, as follows: A note and reason being shown why the opinion in that mortgage to the defendant, Union. Invest- case does not correctly state the law, it would ment Company, dated September 24, 1908; serve no useful purpose to cite further aua warranty deed to the defendant, William thorities or include additional reasoning in D. Cornelius, dated December 4, 1908. That its support, hence we adhere to the concluboth said mortgage and said warranty deed sion announced by the court in its former were duly recorded in the records of the opinion. register of deeds in Okmulgee county; that [2] In Phillips et al. v. Byrd, 143 Pac. 684, said instruments were made without any recently decided, but not yet officially reportorder, decree, or authority of any court, were ed, construing that part of the Act of May void, and conveyed no interest to the par- 27, 1908, which provides:

* The ties grantee or mortgagee, but were clouds enrollment records of the Commissioner to upon plaintiff's title to said lands; and that the Five Civilized Tribes shall hereafter be she had spent the consideration received on conclusive evidence as to the age of said account of the various transactions, and citizen or freedman," it was held that that was unable to refund the same. She asked part of said act of Congress quoted had no for a cancellation of the various conveyances, application to a transaction relating to a conincluding the note and mortgage to the tract or sale of lands completed prior to the Union Investment Company. Defendants date said act took effect, but that said enanswered, admitting the plaintiff was an en-rollnient records were conclusive evidence as rolled citizen of the Creek Nation of the to the age of any enrolled allottee, when aphalf blood, and that the land described in plied to any transaction relating to a conher petition was a portion of her allotment, tract or sale of lands of such allottee, entered but denying that she was under the age of into subsequent to the taking effect of said 18 years at the time of the execution of the act. instruments described in her petition, and [3, 4] The transactions of both the grantee further alleging that at the time of their in the deed and the mortgagee were made in execution, plaintiff was over 18 years of age, the face of the statute making the enrollment and without restriction upon her right of records thereafter conclusive evidence of the alienation of her allotted lands.

age of the allottee. An investigation of these [1] In all of its material aspects the case records would have disclosed the latter's inis a companion to Yarbrough v. Spalding et ability to alienate in the manner attempted. al., 31 Okl. 806, 123 Pac. 843. Each case As said in Bell v. Cook et al. (C. C.) 192 Fed. involves a part of the allotment made Jen- 597, 605: nie Yarbrough, as a citizen by blood of the "If an intending purchaser from an allottee Creek Nation, the plaintiff in error in the of tribal property holding the public rolls in Spalding Case being defendant in error here.

one hand and the act in the other, by a compari

son of the two found such allottee possessed the The conveyances attacked and sought to power of disposition under the act and the rolls, be set aside in each case were made after he was at liberty to purchase, and he was prothe passage by Congress of Act May 27, 1908, tected in such purchase. If, on the contrary, c. 199, 35 Stat. 312.

the law and the public rolls considered together In the Spalding Case denied the right of the allottee to convey, a the land was alienated during the year 1909, purchaser from such allottee was not protected, while in the present case the mortgage was and this regardless of the true state of facts as made December 24, 1908, and the deed exe- they might be made to appear in this case." cuted December 4th of said year. The simi- As to that part of the court's order canlarity of the two cases is conceded by coun- celing, setting aside, and holding for naught sel for plaintiff in error, who in their brief the note given the Union Investment Comsay :

pany, September 24, 1908, we think the court "The facts in this case are practically iden- erred. The act of May 27, 1908, had to do tical with those appearing in case No. 2744, up- primarily with the alienation of allotted lands on the docket of this court, recently decided ;

It Jennie Yarbrough being the plaintiff in both of members of the Five Civilized Tribes. cases, and the land involved in both being por- was not by section 3 thereof intended to tions of her land allotted to her as a citizen arbitrarily make the enrollment records conof the Creek Nation of the half blood."

clusive evidence of age of the allottee for all Plaintiff's testimony consisted of a certified purposes, but in the determination of quescopy of her census or enrollment card, which tions arising under the provisions of the act is identical with that appearing in the opinion alone. The giving of the note, considered in Yarbrough v. Spalding et al. This was apart from the contemporaneous execution the only testimony offered by her. Defendant of the mortgage, was but the creation of it then offered, over plaintiff's objection, evi- personal obligation to pay the amount there i dence which, if competent, tended to show on a day fixed. It was the alienation of allthat plaintiff was 18 years of age December lotted lands that the statute aimed at, not in20, 1907. After hearing the evidence, the dependent or even related transactions. The


fact of plaintiff's minority when the note was W. P. Langston, of Shawnee, for plaintiff executed was put in issue by the answer, and in error. J. R. Witty and Mann, Rogers & the only proof submitted by her, as we have Harris, all of Holdenville, for defendant in already seen, was the citizenship rolls. This, error. for the purpose now being considered, was incompetent, and furnished no proof of plain

SHARP, O. tiff's age at the time the note was executed. tiff instituted an action in the district court

On January 30, 1911, plainIt therefore follows that the judgment of of Hughes county, seeking a writ of mandathe court should be affirmed in so far as it mus to compel the defendant, B. W. Mackey, cancels and sets aside the several instruments treasurer of Hughes county, Okl., to pay a other than the note of the Union Investment certain warrant in the sum of $179.41, drawn Company. As to that portion of the judg upon the treasurer of Hughes county, in fament canceling said note, the same should vor of School District No. 38 of Hughes counbe vacated and set aside.

ty. On March 4th thereafter, defendant filPER CURIAM. Adopted in whole.

ed its answer, to which a demurrer was filed June 29, 1911, and on the same day an agreed

statenent of facts was filed with the clerk (44 Okl. 408)

of the court. On August 7, 1911, the case SCHOOL DIST. NO. 38 v. MACKEY, County came on to be heard upon the pleadings filed Treasurer. (No. 3687.)

and the agreed statement of facts, and, after

consideration thereof, the court entered its (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Dec. 8, 1914.) judgment denying plaintiff the relief sought, (Syllabus by the Court.)

and dismissed his petition. On the same day 1. APPEAL AND ERROR ($ 50+*)-TRIAL ON

motion for a new trial was filed, but was not AGREED STATEMENT-TIME MAKING heard or disposed of until the 18th day of AND SERVING CASE-MADE.

September following, when the motion was Where a case is tried upon an agreed state-overruled, and defendant was given 90 days ment, which eliminates all questions of fact, a therefrom in which to make and serve a motion for a new trial is unauthorized by statute, and the time for making and serving a case

made for appeal. On November 4th case-made for this court runs from the date of thereafter, case-made was served upon opthe rendition of judgment, unaffected by such posing counsel, and the case signed and setmotion or the order overruling the same.

tled by the trial court on November 20th [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. 88 2501-2506, 2555–2559; following. Dec. Dig. § 564.]

[1-3] The petition in error, with case-made 2. APPEAL AND ERROR (8 564*)-TIME FOB attached, was filed in this court on March SERVING CASE-MADE-DISMISSAL.

13, 1912. Motion has been filed to dismiss According to the law in force at the plaintiff's appeal, on account of the fact that time, a party desiring to appeal had three days the petition in error was not filed in this by statute in which to serve a case after a judgment or order was entered, and unless such court within six months from the date of case was served within that time, or within an the rendition of the judgment appealed from. extension of time allowed by the court or judge The motion must be sustained. A motion within such time, the case will not be consid- for a new trial, where a case is tried upon ered by this court.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Appeal and an agreed statement of facts, is unnecessary, Error, Cent. Dig. 88 2501–2506, 2555-2559; hence the filing of such motion does not serve Dec. Dig. 8 564.*]

the purpose of extending the statutory time 3. APPEAL AND ERROR (8 356*)_TIME FOR AP-in which to serve a case after judgment. PEAL-DISMISSAL.

The only order extending the time for seryUnder chapter 18, Laws 1910–11, proceeding the case was made 42 days after the brought within six months from the date of the rendition of the judgment, hence after the rendition of the judgment or order from which expiration of the time fised by statute. the appeal is sought to be taken, and when not Board of County Commissioners v. Porter So brought, this court is without jurisdiction et al., 19 Okl. 173, 92 Pac. 152, in passing to review such final order. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and upon the question before us, it was said by

the court: Error; Cent. Dig. SS 1926, 1927; Dec. Dig. 356.*]

"The case was submitted upon the pleadings

and an agreed statement of facts. There was Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. no necessity for a motion for a new trial. The Error from District Court, Hughes County; case went to the court upon a question of law,

the facts being settled by stipulation, and the John Caruthers, Judge.

overruling of the motion for new trial sa ved Mandamus by School District No. 38, na question for review, and, even had an exHughes county, state of Oklahoma, on the tension been given at the time the motion for relation of F. M. Hale, director of the school new trial was overruled, it would be unavailing board for said district, against B. W. Muck- in this character of a case." ey, county treasurer. Judgment for defend- See, also, Stanard v. Sampson et ux., 23 ant, and plaintiff brings error. Appeal dis- Okl. 13, 99 Pac. 796; Chicago, R. I. & P. missed.

Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee, 39 Okl 728,

In on

136 Pac. 591. See, also, Kansas cases to the Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. same effect cited in foregoing opinions.

Error from District Court, Okmulgee CounAs the proceedings in error were not com-ty; Wade S. Stanfield, Judge. menced in this court until more than six Action by Willie Charles against Anna C. months after the rendition of the judgment, Thornburgh and others. Judgment for dethis court is without jurisdiction to review fendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Afthe judgment of the lower court. Sumner et firmed. al. V. Sherwood, 25 Okl. 70, 105 Pac. 642;

Geo. C. Beidleman and Merwine & NewTishomingo Electric Light & Power Co. v. house, all of Okmulgee, for plaintiff in error. Harris, 28 Okl. 10, 113 Pac. 713; State Sav. Stanford & Cochran, Harlan Read, and Matings Bank, etc., v. Bedden et al., 38 Okl. 444, thews & Ellison, all of Okmulgee, for defend134 Pac. 20; Malloy v. Johnson et al., 40 Okl. ants in error. 454, 139 Pac. 310; Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Howenstine, 40 Ok], 543, 138 Pac.

SHARP, C. Willie Charles, a citizen 381, 139 Pac. 524; May v. Roberts, 40 Okl. freedman of the Creek Nation, enrolled as 659, 140 Pac. 399.

such, on September 24, 1904, sold and by The former action of the court in denying warranty deed sought to convey title to 120, the motion to dismiss should be overruled, acres of the land allotted to him by virtue and the appeal dismissed.

of his said citizenship, to the defendant in PER CURIAM. Adopted in whole.

error Anna C. Thornburgh. Thereafter and on the 21st day of October, 1904, the grantee

in said first above-mentioned deed sold said (44 Okl. 379)

land to the defendants A. A. Vierson and L. CHARLES v. THORNBURGH et al.

L. Sessions. October 15, 1906, said last-men(No. 3120.)

tioned grantees by warranty deed sold said (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Dec. 8, 1914.) land to the defendant the Standard Invest

ment Company. Thereafter and the (Syllabus by the Court.)

21st day of February, 1908, said company 1. INDIANS (8 15*)-ALIENATION OF LANDS-by warranty deed attempted to sell and conENROLLMENT RECORDS – EFFECT AS Evi- vey title to said land to the defendant L. S. DENCE.

Skelton. November 21, 1907, the allottee, Act Cong. May 27, 1908, c. 199, 35 Stat. 313, in part provides :' “* * * The enroll- | Charles, again attempted to convey said ment records of the Commissioner to the Five land, by making a deed thereto to one WilCivilized Tribes shall hereafter be conclusive lie Bradford. evidence as to the age of said citizen or freed- Bradford executed a quitclaim deed to his

On September 22, 1910, said is was it intended to be a rule of evidence; but the pur title in and to said lands to the plaintiff. At pose of said act is to prescribe terms and con- the trial, on the part of the defendants in erditions upon which members of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians may alienate their lands, ror, it was claimed that the allottee, Charles, and to prescribe a fixed and uniform rule by became 21 years of age on September 8, 1904, which those contracting with such members of or prior to the execution of the deed by said tribes could determine the exact date mi- Charles to Thornburgh. On the part of the nors may reach their majority for the purpose plaintiff, it was contended that according to of alienating their lands.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Indians, Cent. the rolls of the Creek freedmen, certified to Dig. 88 17, 29, 34, 37-44; Dec. Dig. $ 15.*] by the acting Commissioner to the Five Civ2. INDIANS (8 15*)-ALIENATION OF LAND-ilized Tribes, Willie Charles was 14 years OPERATION OF STATUTE - RETROACTIVE EF- of age March 17

- RETROACTIVE EF- of age March 17, 1903, hence was a minor on FECT.

That part of said act of Congress mention the date of the execution of the Thornburgh ed in the foregoing paragraph has no application deed. The case was tried before a jury; the to a transaction relating to a sale of allotted sole issue submitted being the age of the land concluded prior to the date said act took plaintiff, Willie Charles, on September 24, effect.

1904. The verdict returned was that on said [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see

see Indians, Cent. Dig. 88 17, 29, 34, 37-44; Dec. Dig. 3 day said Charles was 21 years of age. 15.*]

For a reversal of the judgment of the trial 3. INDIANS (8 15*) - ALIENATION OF ALLOT-court, plaintiff relies upon two alleged er

MENT - REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION OPERA- rors : (1) That the enrollment records of the
Act Cong. April 21, 1904, c. 1402, 33 Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes

, Stat. 189, removing

all the restric- were conclusive evidence of the age of plaintions upon the alienation of lands of all allot- tiff; and (2) that on September 24, 1904, tees of either of the Five Civilized Tribes of the restrictions upon Charles' right of alienIndians who are not of Indian blood, except mi-ation had not been removed. nors,

authorized a freedman citizen of the Creek Nation to alienate by deed her

[1, 2] The first question involves the detersurplus allotment upon attaining her majority, mination of rights which accrued, and of the though a minor at the time of the passage of effect of transactions which were concluded, the act. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Indians, prior to the passage by Congress of the Act

Cent. Dig. $$ 17, 29, 34, 37-44; Dec. Dig. of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. at L. 313, c. 199), 15.*]

in which it is provided that the enrollment

66 *

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


•For other cases see samo topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes records of the Commissioner to the Five Civ- In our opinion, for the reasons already ilized Tribes "shall hereafter be conclusive stated, the enrollment records were not comevidence as to the age" of any enrolled citizen petent evidence for any purpose, and such or freedman of those tribes. There was suf- was the conclusion reached by this court in ficient evidence, if competent, in view of the Grayson et al. v. Durant et al., supra. statute, to sustain the verdict of the jury. [3] It is next urged that Charles, having Upon it defendants relied to sustain their attained his majority subsequent to the pastitle. If, however, the evidence was not sage of the Act of April 21, 19901 (33 Stat. at competent, and the court erred in excluding, L. 189, c. 1402), and even though he had beas conclusive evidence of the age of Willie come of age prior to September 24th of said Charles, the enrollment records of the Com- year, could not alienate his allotted lands. missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, then Willie Charles, it will be remembered, was a clearly the judgment of the trial court must freedman citizen of the Creek Yation. The be reversed. As has already been noted, the position of counsel is that the act of April transaction was one that was concluded prior 21, 1901, only removed restrictions upon to the passage of the act. The exact ques- those who were adults at the time of the tion presented has been decided by this court passage of the act, and that the language in the following cases: Williams v. Joins, of the statute does not include those who 34 Okl. 733, 126 Pac. 1013; Rice v. Ruble, subsequently became of age. The act in 39 Okl. 51, 131 Pac. 49; Perkins v. Baker, 41 this regard reads: Okl. 288, 137 Pac. 661; Scott v. Brakel et "And all the restrictions upon the alienation al., 143 Pac. 510; Phillips et al. v. Byrd, 113 of lands of all allottees of either of the Five CivPac. 684; Grayson et al. v. Durant et al., blood, except minors, are, except as to home

ilized Tribes of Indians who are not of Indian 144 Pac. 592. In Phillips et al. v. Byrd, su- steads, hereby removed.” pra, referring to that part of the act of May

The construction urged is untenable. Ob27, 1908, providing that the enrollment rec- viously, the intention of Congress was to ords “shall hereafter be conclusive evidence pass a general law applicable to certain as to the age” of said citizen or freedman, classes of allottees. Those who were of lawit was said:

ful age at the time of its passage, as well “That part of said act of Congress, quoted, as those who subsequently attained their has no application to a transaction relating to a contract or sale of lands completed prior to majority, were within the purview of the the date said act took effect."


All others were expressly excluded In similar language, it was said in Scott from its operation. Where the language of V. Brakel et al., supra :

a statute, as in the present case, is in gen"In the determination of rights which accrued eral terms, and in words of the present and the effect of transactions concluded prior tense, the statute will, as a general rule, be to May 27, 1908, the enrollment records of the construed to apply not only to things and Commission are not conclusive evidence of the age of any Indian citizen or freedman enrolled conditions existing at its passage, but will thereon."

also be given a prospective interpretation, by The decision of the Circuit Court of Ap- which it will apply to such as come into expeals for the Eighth Circuit, in Malone et al. istence thereafter. 36 Cyc. 1235; Pacific V. Alderdice et al., 212 Fed. 668, is in har- Milling & El. Co. v. City of Portland, 65 mony with the views of this court; the court Or. 319, 133 Pac. 72, 76, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) in that case citing in support of its conclu- 363; Carter v. Coharie Lbr. Co., 160 N. C. sion Williams v. Joins and Perkins v. Baker, 8, 75 S. E. 1074; Schus v. Powers-Simpson supra. It was there, as here, insisted that Co., 85 Minn. 417, 89 N. W. 68, 09 L. R. A. the action of the Commission to the Five 887. Civilized Tribes in making up the rolls, un

Construing Clay's Dig. of Alabama, 112, 8 der authority given it by the various acts of 47, which provided that: Congress, therein reviewed, was conclusive "All the notes, bills, bonds, or other evidence of the age of the allottee. It was held, how- of debt, held by the state bank or branch banks,

payable to the cashier, or the person who has ever, in answer to this contention, that the filled the office of cashier, of said bank, or branch action of the Commission in its decisions, re- banks, may be sued, and collected in the name of citals, or reports, regarding issues whose de- the several banks, in the same inanner as if termination was not indispensable to enable bank, or branch banks, by which the paper has

they had been made payable directly to said it to decide who should be enrolled, what been taken or discounted," lands should be allotted to those enrolled, and the Supreme Court of that state, in 'Daris how, was, in the absence of special legisla- et al. v. Branch Bank of Mobile, 12 Ala. 46:3, tion, such as the act of May 27, 1908, without held that the act upplied equally to notes judicial or other conclusive effect. The court which were executed at the time of its passaid, in reaching its conclusion :

sage, and to those which had been made The result is that in the determination of

since. rights which accrued and of the effect of proceedings which were concluded prior to May 27,

In United States v. Shock (C. C.) 187 Fer. 1908, the enrollment records of the Commis- S62, which involved the construction of the sion are not conclusive evidence of the age of various acts of Congress on the suliject of any Indian citizen or freedman"-citing Hegler v. Faulkner, 153 U. s. 109, 117, 118, 14 Sup. the right to alienate lands of the citizens of Ct. 779, 38 L. Ed. 653.

the Creek Nation, and to tax the same when

[ocr errors]


* "

[ocr errors]

alienable, the United States Court for the In addition to that part of the act already Eastern District of this state, in passing up- quoted, the further provision is found:

66* on the contention here urged, said:

And all restrictions upon the alien“For reasons sufficient to Congress, it saw fitation of all other allottees of said tribes, except to remove restrictions from the surplus lands

minors, and except as to homesteads, may, with of all adult allottees of the classes mentioned. be removed under such rules and regulations as

the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, The same reasons apply with equal force to the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, upthose subsequently becoming adults. No reason is suggested, nor is any conceived, for making on application to the United States Indian

agent at the union agency." any distinction between those of the class named who were of age on April 21, 1904, and those Giving effect to the same rule of construcsubsequently becoming of age. To make such a tion insisted upon, the Secretary of the Indistinction would, I think, be in direct violation terior, under this provision of the act, would of the plain purpose of the act. the act of April 21, 1904, the class Congress has be without authority to remove restrictions in mind consists of those not of Indian blood. from those who attained their majority aftIt excepts minors of the class named, from the operation of the law merely because of their mier its passage. Such was not the intention nority, and no sound reason can be urged, why, of Congress, neither can the position be when minors of the class named become of maintained from the language employed. age, they are not within the purview of the

The judgment of the trial court should in law.

all things be affirmed. In Goat et al. v. United States, 224 U. S.

PER CURIAM. Adopted in whole. 458, 32 Sup. Ct. 544, 56 L. Ed. 841, the United States had brought suit to cancel certain conveyances made by Seminole freedmen, al

(44 Okl. 388) leged to be in violation of existing restric- SNYDER V. JOHNSON. (No. 3485.) tions on alienation. The broad position was (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Dec. 8, 1914.) taken by the government that all convey

(Syllabus by the Court.) ances of the land allotted to members of

) the Seminole Tribe were void because made 1. VENDOR AND PURCHASER (8 334*)—DEFAULT

BY PURCHASER-RIGHT TO RECOVER MONEY prior to the date of patent, under the agree- PAID. ment between the Commission to the Five

Where a vendee contracts to purchase cerCivilized Tribes and the Seminoles, set forth tain real estate, and, after paying a part of the

purchase price, makes default, he cannot mainin the opinion. The court, however, directed tain an action to recover the money so paid. attention to the act of April 21, 1904, re- [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Vendor and moving the restrictions upon alienation by Purchaser, Cent. Dig. 88 959–980; Dec. Dig. s

334.*] adult allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes who were not of Indian blood, of lands other 2. VENDOR AND PURCHASER (8 341*)-RESCIS

SION OF CONTRACT-SUFFICIENCY OF Evithan homesteads. It does not appear from

DENCE. the opinion when the adult allottees, whose Evidence examined, and held insufficient to conveyances were sought to be canceled, at- sustain an allegation of mutual rescission of a tained their majority.

contract after default of the vendee. It was, however,

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Vendor and held that adult grantors, after the passage Purchaser, Cent. Dig. 88 1008-1017; Dec. Dig. of the act of April 21, 1904, stood precisely $ 341.*] in the same position as though they had re

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. ceived their allotments without any restric-| Error from District Court, Grant County ; tion upon their right to alienate the interest W. M. Bowles, Judge. thus acquired. The conclusion reached by Action by Gust Johnson against S. S. Snythe court was: (1) That the bill should be der. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant sustained so far as it related to convey- brings error.

convey brings error. Reversed and remanded. ances of homestead la'nds; (2) that it should

F. G. Walling, of Tulsa, and C. S. Ingeralso be sustained to the extent that it was soll, of Medford, for plaintiff in error.

Sam directed against conveyances of surplus P. Ridings, of Medford, for defendant in lands made by freedman allottees who were

erro. minors, and thus excepted from the provisions of the act of April 21, 1904, and those RITTENHOUSE, C. On June 10, 1909, S. made by adult allottees prior to that act; S. Snyder, plaintiff in error, who was defendand (3) that so far as the bill related to ant below, sold to Gust Johnson, defendant in conveyances of surplus lands, made by adult error, who was plaintiff below, the southeast freedman allottees, subsequent to April 21, quarter of section 12 in township 25 north, 1904, it should be dismissed. See, also, Dem- range 6 west of the Indian meridian, for a ing Investment Co. v. United States, 224 U. consideration of $13,000; $9,000 to be paid S. 471, 32 Sup. Ct. 549, 56 L. Ed. 847. We in cash; and the balance of $4,000 secured find nothing in these recent expressions of by mortgage due in one year. One thouthe Supreme Court limiting the right to sand dollars which was to be applied as part alienate to those who were adults on April payment on the purchase price was paid at 21, 1904, and do not believe it was intend the time of entering into the contract. It is ed to announce such a rule.

alleged and proven that after making said

*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. &. Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

« ПредишнаНапред »