209 U.S. Statement o! the SHAWNEE COMPILESS COMPANY v. ANDERSON. APPEAL FROM ?HE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERR1R?RY OF OKLAHOMA. No. 140. Ar?u?d Where the Sup?me Cou? of the Te? of O?ahoma ?v? ?e ju?- m?t ? the t? ?, ?e ?e? ?w? of tM? de?inin? whether ?em w? e?d?ce ?p? ?e ? ?d wheth? the fac? fo?d we? ?ua? ? ?n ?e 1? ?n?o?. In ?is c?, the ?p?me ?u? of the Te? ha? found ?at a 1?, ?g m?e ? fu?her ? ?a?ul ?H?, w? void ? ? ?n- able '?nt of t?e ?d the jud?t, ? ?ing p?f ?p?ing the concl?o? that the lessor comply ? ? ? out of the field of ?m?Ufion, not ? ?r ?at field ?in, ?d ? ?der eve? ?is?ce ? p?vent $?e? from ending i?er ? in ?d of a ?heme of toonobly a? ?ng pmv?. It is not ne? ? de?ne wheth? the Sup?me ? of the Te?- ? b? i? jurat hold?g ?ch a t? She? ?w, or on the ?tu? of the Te?; the ?t pl? u?n the l?r w? ?r t? the pm?on of t? 1? ?. 17 O?oma, 231, ?. T?xs suit w? brou?t in the Dist?ct Co? of the county of Lincoln, Te?to? of O?ahoma, by ap?lle? ? s?c?olde? of the Sha?ee Comprc? ?mpany agaimt ap?, cancel a le?e made by the Sha?ee Comp? ?mp?y the Gulf Compress ?m?any. The ori?nal ?tition a?eged t?t the comp? comp? were ?s?ctively co?o?tio? of O?o? and the S? of ?a?ma; that the plaintiffs, ap?e? he?, we? ?o?ty s?c?olde? of the Sha?ee ?mp?y; that ce?n of the s?c?olde? of the Sha?ee ?mpany, c?i?ng office?, "conceived the idea of ]e?ing the enti? pro?y ?d b?in? of said company, ?gether ?th i? g? ? and the ?t ? the b?ine? thereof ? ?id defendant, G?f ?mp? ?mp?y, a forei? corporation;" that su?quently
�
