In re Berryhill's Estate

Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory

In re Berryhill's Estate

104 S.W. 850, 7 Indian Terr. 601, 1907 Indian Terr. LEXIS 67

CourtCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory

DecidedSeptember 26, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 104 S.W. 850 (In re Berryhill's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Berryhill's Estate, 104 S.W. 850, 7 Indian Terr. 601, 1907 Indian Terr. LEXIS 67 (Conn. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Lawrence, J.

This is a companion case to that of No. S20, In re Estate of Joseph F. Berryhill, an Infant, by William Berry hill, Guardian, and Galbreath Oil & Gas Co., Appellees, 104 S. W. 847; the appellant here being the same appellant there. The two cases are based upon essentially the same facts, except in this case it appears that there is an affidavit of the appellant’s agent and attorney denying that it did make any sealed bid on the lease in question, as reported by the master in chancery. This does not affect the merits of the case as we view it, for the reason" that the material question is: Did the court at any time, or in any manner, approve or confirm the leasing of the guardian to this appellant? The record fails to show any such action upon the part of the court, or any report of the master even recommending it. Aside from what, is above stated, the material facts of the case are identical, and therefore [602]*602it must follow that the opinion given in No. 820 will in all respects be the opinion in this.

The judgment of the court is affirmed.

Gild, C. J., and Clayton and Townsend, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lawrence, J.

This is a companion case to that of No. S20, In re Estate of Joseph F. Berryhill, an Infant, by William Berry hill, Guardian, and Galbreath Oil & Gas Co., Appellees, 104 S. W. 847; the appellant here being the same appellant there. The two cases are based upon essentially the same facts, except in this case it appears that there is an affidavit of the appellant’s agent and attorney denying that it did make any sealed bid on the lease in question, as reported by the master in chancery. This does not affect the merits of the case as we view it, for the reason" that the material question is: Did the court at any time, or in any manner, approve or confirm the leasing of the guardian to this appellant? The record fails to show any such action upon the part of the court, or any report of the master even recommending it. Aside from what, is above stated, the material facts of the case are identical, and therefore [602]*602it must follow that the opinion given in No. 820 will in all respects be the opinion in this.

The judgment of the court is affirmed.

Gild, C. J., and Clayton and Townsend, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.W. 850, 7 Indian Terr. 601, 1907 Indian Terr. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-berryhills-estate-ctappindterr-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack