
    HADDOCK et al. v. WORRELL et al.
    No. 12611
    Opinion Filed Feb. 24, 1925.
    1. I iaus-]invalidi{y o'f Over1a~ping Lease O~ Restricted Surplus Allotment.
    An agricultural lease executed and delivered by a full-~bIood Choctaw Indian, on the surplus allotment, to rum for a period of five years from date, before the expiration of an existing five year valid lease, is null and void and conveys no interest in the proj-erty to the second lessee.
    2. Same-Judgment Sustained.
    Record examined; held, that the record supports judgment for the defendants.
    (Syllabus by Stephenson, 0.)
    Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4.
    Error f~om ~Distaiot Oourt~ ~ef~er~on County; Cham Jones, Judge.
    
      Action by E. T. Haddock and Ida Lewis, nee Jackson, against E. L. Worrell and Byrd Gunn in ejectment and for renits. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs bring error.
    Affirmed.
    Ledbetter & Ledbetter, for plaintiffs in error.
    Green & Pruitt, for defendants in error.
   Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C.

Ida Lewis, nee Jackson, one of tbe plaintiffs in error, is duly enrolled on tbe approved rolls of tbe Mississippi Oboctaw Indians. Tbe lands involved in tbis action were conveyed to tbe allottee as ber surplus allotment. Ida Lewis, tbe allottee, and E. T. Haddock, a lessee of the latter, commenced their action in ejectment and for rents against E. L. Wor-rell and Byrd Gunn for the possession of the lands involved in tbis action. A trial-of tbe cause resulted in judgment for tbe defendants. The plaintiffs have appealed tbe action to this court for reversal.

Tbe question involved between tbe parties here is the validity of -the leases claimed by Haddock and Worrell. Tbe record shows a number of leases executed and delivered by the allottee during several years prior to tbis action. Tbe leiases a-s shown by the record are as follows: A lease to Chas. Bfile bearing date of November 5, 1908, for a period of five years from díate; a lease to E. T. Lewis -and J. L. Keltner bearing date as of August 3, 1914, for a period of five years from date; tbe latter lease was assigned to ®. L. Worrell, one of tbe defend< ants herein; a lease to -Hugh Treadwell bearing date of August 5, 1915, for a period of fiv,e years from date; a lease to W. Hejnder-son on April 5, 1917, for one year from date; -another lease to tbe same party -bearing date as of August 10, 1917, for a period of five years from January 1, 1918; another lease to the same party bearing dalte of January 9, 1918, and for a period of five years from -date; a lease to- O. A. Vande-vort bearing date of December 24, 1918, for a period of one year from January 1, 1919; a lease to O. A. Yandevort bearing date of' July 1, 1919, for a period of five years from date; a lease to H. H. Deskins bearing date of March 31, 1919, for a period of three years commencing January 1, 1919; a lease to E. L. Worrell bearing date as of August 4, 1919, for a period of five'years from date.

Tbe def-endent Worrell rests bis right to possession upon the lease executed and delivered to him by tbe allottee, bearing date as of August 4, 1919, for a period of five years from date. Tbe latter lease was executed and delivered to Worrell on the day following the expiration of tbe five year term, created by tbe leb-se executed and delivered toy the allottee to- E. T. Lewis and J. L. Keltner, bearing date as of August 3, 1914, for a period of five years from date. The defendant Worrell took the latter lease by assignment and held the same during its full term. Tbe plaintiffs in error present for consideration the effect of tbe latter taking a lease* on tbe samq property on July 1, 1919, and about 34 days prior to tbe expiration of the lease held by Wor-rell through an assignment. Tbe plaintiffs in error express the question in their brief in -tbq following language:

“Now tbe court can readily see that the question necessarily arises, whether or not tbe leasd which tbe plaintiff in error Haddock claims under, dated July 1, 1919, was a valid lease in eonsideraton of tbe fact Ithat it wa-s taken about 'thirty days prior to tbe expiration of tbe lea-sd which was made on tbe 3rd day -of Auguslt, 1914. In other words, the question of law necessarily arises whether or not there) cam be a valid lease taken from a restricted Indian during the existence of a prior lease under tbe conditions shown in Ithis record.”

Th^ question presented by this appeal has not been before tbis court heretofore on a similar record.

The record indicates a spirited contest among several parties to obtain anid hold possession of the lands involved in this action through leases from the allottee.

The record does not present a condition wtoi-ch would call for th^ co-msideraltion of the questions involved herein upon equitable grounds. The parties evidently intended t-o insist upon the validity of the several leases, as measured by the congressional acts relating to -the -allottee’s right to lease the lands. The several leases executed by -the allottee and of record were sufficient -to -advise -the parties that a contest would likely follow from -the numerous leiases.

A similar question was before the Supreme Court of the United Stales in the case of United States v. Noble, 237 U. S. 74, upon a record similar to the one involved herein. The court reached the conclusion that It-he execution and delivery of a lease on restricted lands was rendered void by the existence of a valid prior lqas,e.

The plaintiffs in error take the position that ‘they -had Ithe right to take the lease) near the expiration of the Worrell lease in order to control cultivation for th^ following year. This court has applied the rule in, relation to homestead allotments, but the question) has not been considered heretofore in relation to the surplus allotment upon a record as is here presented.

Note. — 'See under (1) 31 C. J. p. 518.

We think that thq rules applied in the Noble Case ar,e applicable and control the question involved in this appeal.

The Haddock lease, as measured hy the rules applied in the Noble Case, must fall; consequently, the judgment of the court for the defendant is supported hy the record.

It is recommended that tliq judgment of the court he. aflirmed.-

By ihe Court: It is so ordered.  