Lawson v. Nye

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Lawson v. Nye

1924 OK 212, 239 P. 127, 112 Okla. 162, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 743

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 19, 1924

Docket12689

StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK 212 (Lawson v. Nye) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawson v. Nye, 1924 OK 212, 239 P. 127, 112 Okla. 162, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 743 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

JARMAN, C.

On June 30 1919, L. A. Nye, a guardian of Mollie Harjo, a full-blood Creek Indian, an incompetent, entered into a written contract of employment with Lewis C. Lawson, an attorney at law, the plaintiff in error, to recover for Mollie 1-Iarjo certain lands, located in Creek county, and oil royalties therefrom, which the Prairie Oil Company and others had taken possession of and appropriated. Mollie Harjo is the mother of Sam. Lucas, a duly enrolled Creek Indian, to whom the land above referred to was allotted; and Sam Lucas died, intestate and possessed of said land, on October 6, 1902. Mollie Harjo claims to be the sole heir at law of 8am Lucas, deceased, and, as such, the owner in fee simple of said land.

Said contract was approved by the county court of Okfuskee county on October 4, 1919,; and thereafter L. A. Nye, guardian, filed a petition in said county court to have the order approving said contract va->ated and set aside, which the county court declined to do, and on appeal to the district court, judgment was rendered directing that the order approving said contract be vacated and set aside, from which judgment said L. C. Lawson appealed to this court.

The records of this court show that, in obedience to said contract, L. O. Lawson *163 tiled an action in tlie district court of Creek county to recover the lands aboye referred to, and for judgment for the oil royalties collected therefrom by the Prairie Oil & Gas Company. A trial of that cause was- had, resulting in a judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff in said cause, Luther A. Nye, guardian of Mollie Harjo, an incompetent, appealed to this court, where the cause appears under the style of Luther A. Nye, Guardian of Mollie Harjo, an Incompetent, Plaintiff in Error, against Prairie Oil & Gas Company, a Corporation, and Margaret A. Keys, Defendant in Error, No. 12413. On January ,29, 1924, in an opinion written by Commissioner Estes, this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which held that the plaintiff had no right, title, or interest in and to the land aboye referred to. (105 Okla. 104, 238 Pac. 962.)

The contract involved in the instant action provides that said attorney tehfeaild have and receive one-half of the land, oil royalties, etc., that might be recovered; and since it has been finally determined that the plaintiff in said cause, Mollie Harjo, was not entitled to recover anything, then this action, involving the attorney’s contract, has become worthless, and the propositions presented in connection therewith for review by this court are mooted Questions, and no substantial relief can be afforded by determining the same, and, therefore, under the well settled rule adopted by this court, said appeal will be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

JARMAN, C.

On June 30 1919, L. A. Nye, a guardian of Mollie Harjo, a full-blood Creek Indian, an incompetent, entered into a written contract of employment with Lewis C. Lawson, an attorney at law, the plaintiff in error, to recover for Mollie 1-Iarjo certain lands, located in Creek county, and oil royalties therefrom, which the Prairie Oil Company and others had taken possession of and appropriated. Mollie Harjo is the mother of Sam. Lucas, a duly enrolled Creek Indian, to whom the land above referred to was allotted; and Sam Lucas died, intestate and possessed of said land, on October 6, 1902. Mollie Harjo claims to be the sole heir at law of 8am Lucas, deceased, and, as such, the owner in fee simple of said land.

Said contract was approved by the county court of Okfuskee county on October 4, 1919,; and thereafter L. A. Nye, guardian, filed a petition in said county court to have the order approving said contract va->ated and set aside, which the county court declined to do, and on appeal to the district court, judgment was rendered directing that the order approving said contract be vacated and set aside, from which judgment said L. C. Lawson appealed to this court.

The records of this court show that, in obedience to said contract, L. O. Lawson *163 tiled an action in tlie district court of Creek county to recover the lands aboye referred to, and for judgment for the oil royalties collected therefrom by the Prairie Oil & Gas Company. A trial of that cause was- had, resulting in a judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff in said cause, Luther A. Nye, guardian of Mollie Harjo, an incompetent, appealed to this court, where the cause appears under the style of Luther A. Nye, Guardian of Mollie Harjo, an Incompetent, Plaintiff in Error, against Prairie Oil & Gas Company, a Corporation, and Margaret A. Keys, Defendant in Error, No. 12413. On January ,29, 1924, in an opinion written by Commissioner Estes, this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which held that the plaintiff had no right, title, or interest in and to the land aboye referred to. (105 Okla. 104, 238 Pac. 962.)

The contract involved in the instant action provides that said attorney tehfeaild have and receive one-half of the land, oil royalties, etc., that might be recovered; and since it has been finally determined that the plaintiff in said cause, Mollie Harjo, was not entitled to recover anything, then this action, involving the attorney’s contract, has become worthless, and the propositions presented in connection therewith for review by this court are mooted Questions, and no substantial relief can be afforded by determining the same, and, therefore, under the well settled rule adopted by this court, said appeal will be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 212, 239 P. 127, 112 Okla. 162, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawson-v-nye-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack