STATE OF OKLAHOMA
v.
STATE OF TEXAS. UNITED STATES, INTERVENER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Oklahoma sought release of Native American allotment lands on the north side of the Red River from receivership, and the Supreme Court ordered that the lands be released from receivership upon satisfaction of two conditions: execution of approved agreements establishing side line boundaries between adjoining tracts, and payment of all outstanding balances owed to the receiver for oil well operations conducted on those lands.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
On consideration of the motion of the United States for a release from the existing receivership of the following described lands lying on the north side of the medial line of Red River, that is to say:
(1) Lot 4 of Section 34 in Township 4 South of Range 14 West embraced in Allotment No. 3385, Comanche, 1910, to Day Tah-Too-Ah-Ni-Pah ;
(2) Lot 1 of Section 33 in Township 4 South of Range 14 West embraced in Allotment No. 3303, Kiowa, 1910, to Ray Do-Yah;
(3) Lot 6. of Section 5 in Township 5 South of Range 14 West embraced in Allotment No. 3293, Kiowa, 1910, to Maggie Turtle Mountain Reid; and (4) Lot 5 of Section 5 and Lot 3 of Section 8 in Township 5 South of Range 14 West embraced in Allotment No. 3413, Comanche, 1910, to Robert To-Quothy,
It is ordered as to each of these tracts that the same, including so much of the bed of Red River as lies in front thereof and north of the medial line of the river, be released from the receivership, and the possession be sur rendered by the receiver, upon fulfillment as to such tract of the following conditions, and not otherwise:
(a) The execution and presentation to the receiver of satisfactory agreements, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, establishing the side lines, from the surveyed upland on the north bank to such medial line, between such tract and the adjoining tracts on either side; and (b) The payment to the receiver of such sum or balance as may at the time be owing to the receiver on account of oil wells (whether productive or otherwise) drilled or completed on such.tract and within such side lines under the supervision or administration of the receiver, — such sum or balance to include all expenditures and advancements of the receiver, whether for materials, labor, receivership expenses or otherwise, in respect of such wells.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. Obergfell, 121 F.2d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1941)…Richfield Oil Co., 9 Cir., 74 F. 2d 907, 908, certiorari denied, Cities Service Co. v. Armsby, 296 U.S. 583, 56 S.Ct. 94, 80 L.Ed. 412; American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. New York Rys. Co., 2 Cir., 282 F. 523, 527, appeal dismissed, 262 U.S. 736, 43 S.Ct. 704, 67 L.Ed. 1207; Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co. v. Kinney, 8 Cir., 266 F. 888. Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., 270 U.S. 266, 274, 46 S.Ct. 263, 70 L.Ed. 578. Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 171, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104.…
-
Madden v. La Cofske, 72 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1934)…reby created between the lessor and him by which he becomes liable upon the covenant to pay rent.” The identical rule is stated in American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. New York Rys. Co. (C. C. A. 2) 282 F. 523, 529, appeal dismissed, 262 U. S. 736, 43 S. Ct. 704, 67 L. Ed. 1207; Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co. (D. C.) 219 F. 939, 958; General Finance Corporation v. New York State Rys. (C. C. A. 2) 54 F.(2d) 1008, 1009; DeWolf v. Royal Trust Co., 173 Ill. 435, 50 N. Ed. 1049, 1050; Lewis on T…