Summary

Rufus Wheeler Peckham Oklahoma City v. McMaster — Opinion of the Court

Without resort to this (asserted) judgment in the action against the town-site trustees, it is not urged that the defendant in error made out his case upon the trial. There was no judgment, and the 'finding of facts' should not have been held to be such. For the error in the admission of the socalled judgment the case must be reversed.
We do not decide, even if there had been a technical and formal judgment entered, that such a judgment would be conclusive in favor of the plaintiff upon the trial of this action against the city of Oklahoma City.
Source: Wikisource

Rufus Wheeler Peckham Oklahoma City v. McMaster — Opinion of the Court

It seems, therefore, plain that a mere agreement among a portion of the people selecting lots for or in a projected town site on April 22, 1889, did not and could not vest an absolute and unconditional title in the persons who thus selected such lots. The persons going on the land on that date, and under the circumstances then existing, did not have any law for the vesting of title to a lot as within a town site, by the mere selection of land at that time. There was general confusion, and there were thousands of people entering the territory embraced within the proclamation, on that date.
Source: Wikisource

Rufus Wheeler Peckham Oklahoma City v. McMaster — Opinion of the Court

Stat. 1901, p. 1463) , entered the land in the local land office at Oklahoma City, September 3, 1890, covering, among other lots, the premises in question, 'in trust, for the use and benefit of the occupants thereof.' A patent from the United States was, on the 1st of October, 1890, issued to the trustees for the land (covering over 160 acres) , which patent was, by its terms, in trust for the occupants of the town site, according to their respective interests. At neither date was the plaintiff below an occupant of the land in suit.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature