cepting the deed and paying the purchase price. 2 Pom. Equity Juris., p 1008, note 1. In Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, the purchaser employed counsel to examine the title. In the course of his investigation, he learned as a fact that the land had been previously sold, but there being no conveyance of record, and the transaction being an old one, he reached the conclusion that of the vendor was good, and so reported to his principal. The Supreme Court, though holding that the principal was charged with all the knowledge possessed by his agent, still decided that the vendee was entitled to the protection of a good faith purchaser. In the case of United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, the suspicious circumstances were much stronger than in this case but the Supreme Court refused to charge the purchaser with notice.

The position of the assignees of the McKays, however, is more favorable than their own. The evidence shws affirmatively that in October, 1906, the McKays executed an oil and gas lease of the property to Arthur B. Reese, under whom the other defendants claim. The rule is well settled that if Reese took without notice of plaintiff's lease, his title would be good though his vendor had such notice. Stanley v. Schwaby, 162 U. S., 255-283. At the time Reese accepted his lease, he inquired of the McKays whether there was any outstanding claim against the property, and was told by them that there was not. In proof of their statement they exhibited to him the abstract of title showing the land to be clear. Reese also caused inquiry to be made of the Indian Agency as to whether any oil and gas leases appeared of record there and received a certificate from an abstracter who made the inquiry on his behalf, that no such lease had been filed. Reese had no actual knowledge of any fact or circumstance which put him upon inquiry as to the existence of any prior lease or claim. Complainant seeks to charge him with notice because he in fact made inquiry at the Indian Agency where the lease was filed, but failed to discover its existence. It is charged that on investigation there was negligent, and that he is therefore im

pressed with notice of all that he would have discovered if he had made proper inquiry. The answer to such a claim is this: Reese was charged with no duty of inquiring at the. Agency. An ineffectual inquiry, therefore, cannot place him in a worse position than he would have been if he had made no inquiry at all. But again we think that he is not properly chargeable with negligence. He applied to an abstracter to ascertain from the files of the agency whether any lease appeared there against the property, and received a written statement from him that no such lease was on file. This surely was the exercise of such care as a reasonable and prudent business man would have exercised under the same circumstances. For reasons which we have already explained the records at the Indian Agency had no force to impart constructive notice. The evidence is clear that neither Reese nor his agent at the time he took his lease had any actual knowledge of what appeared upon those records. Inasmuch as he was under no legal duty to search at the agency, his ineffectual effort to ascertain the state of its files certainly cannot place him in the same position as he would have occupied if he had obtained actual knowledge of the lease.

From a careful examination of the evidence we are of the opinion that the defendants are entitled to the protection of good faith purchasers as against complainants lease. The decree, therefore, of the trial court, was right, and it is

RINER, District Judge, concurs in the result.

John D. Jordan, Clerk United States

Affirmed.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit.

(The foregoing Opinion is here published in full at the urgent request of many of the leading lawyers of the east side of the state. While it may not be of the same universal interest to the west side, it is of vast importance in what formerly was The Indian Territory.

REVIEWS.

MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE

AND TOXICOLOGY.

By John W. Reese, M. D. New and Revised Edition. Published by P. Blakiston's Son & Company,

Philadelphia, Pa.

This is a new work, neat, compact and well arranged. Its great merit, however, does not rest on its mechanical execution but in the terse, yet clear and comprehensive manner of its statement of facts pertaining to the subject. Many other writers have contributed to the literature of this important branch of study, but none, with perhaps, the exception of Alfred Taylor, have confined themselves to a practical scope-condensed the matter to a practical treatment and a reasonable size volume. Medical Jurisprudence is full of technic pertaining to the science, but the busy physician or lawyer require a compendium on this subject, that is accurate and reliable, yet not so ponderous as to deter from its study. After an introductory chapter, this work discusses scientifically what are the positive signs of death, followed by another chapter on Medico-Legal investigation, next by an extensive one on Presumption of death and Survivorship; then follows one on the often puzzeling question of Personal identity. Causes producing violent death, Feigned disease and injury, Criminal abortion and infanticide, Insanity and Malpractice each receives special attention. The work closes with a chapter on Toxicology. It contains also a complete index of all the topics treated.

AMERICAN STATE REPORTS.

Volume 125.

Selected and Annotated by Hon. A. C. Freeman.
Published by Bancroft-Whitney Company,

Price $4. per Vol.

San Francisco, Cal.

This series of reports like old wine gets better and richer with age. The reason for it is the fact that Mr. Freeman has been the annotator for so long that knows thoroughly what preceeds and thus avoids useless repetition, and again in such long series of reports, every question of legal adjudication has been touched and the later volumes refer back not only to the opinions but to the wealth of notes also.

Volume 125 is the equal of any of its predecessors, both in the selection of cases and accurate annotation. Some of the opinions are so fully annotated as to refer to all its kindred and the notes cover many pages. The case of Wood vs. Wood actually covers in notes 21 pages. That of Phillips vs. Phillips on the question of exemptions, is a very valuable case showing how far apparel may be exempt. At page 338, Commonwealth vs. Morrison, on the use of streets in cities, is an opinion of great value. The same could be said of many other opinions in this volume but space forbids. This volume contains an in

dex of one hundred pages.

EDITORIALS.

We heard the celebrated Thomas M. Cooley once say that there was, "nothing more detrimental to the peace of society than the enactment of laws that the great majority of the community does not voluntarily obey." There can be no better application to the above statement than be applied to our liquor enforcement in some localities. How can a county attorney, however energetic and sincere, secure a conviction in a jury trial, in some city or county where the great majority on the panel, either favor the liquor traffic or look at the offense of dealing in it as a trivial matter? We will say no more at this time, but submit this thought for reflection.

On September 14 the Supreme Court of Oklahoma will meet in regular session and render a number of important opinions.

The Supreme Court has ordered a special term of district court at Ryan, Jefferson county, commencing the fifth Monday in August and continuing four weeks

The district court of Stephens county is ordered to hold special term of six weeks, beginning the fourth Monday in September.

Chief Justice Kane has also made the following order: that Judge J. J. Carney of El Reno, hold three days session of court at Chickasha, commencing September 20th, and that Judge Brown of Chickasha, hold court at El Reno during that time.

Logan county district court will commence Monday, September 13th, and continue until the 25th of October.

The 13th volume of the Amer. & Eng. Cases is out. "Moore on Facts" coutinues to receive the highest encomium from the Profession. Both the above are published by the Edward Thompson Company.

Attorney General West in an opinion to State Treasurer justly holds, that each of the state's normal schools, including the three recently located in the eastern part of the state, should receive an equitable part of one third of the rents derived from sections 13 of the school lands.

Several of Judge Dunn's legal opinions have been honored by The Lawyer's Co-operative Company, by being placed among leading opinions, in the Lawyer's Reports Annotated.

As to the inquiry: "Does the Federal Equity Practice, by Street, recently published, throw light on questions arising in our federal practice on the eastside?" We have not seen the work. We can say this, however, that the Thompson Company does not publish unmeritorious books. They publish nothing but the best, and being one of their publications, it is doubtless an excellent and useful work.