quiring a bankrupt to pay over money | the owner, the United States, at its option, may sue in equity for cancelation of the lease, or for damages against the guardian, or possibly also at law for damages against the lessees. effect of secretly securing interest by guardian in leased land of ward. 10 his trustee unless the bankrupt's ability to comply therewith is plainly and affirmatively shown. American Trust Co. v. Wallis, 61 C. C. A. 342, 126 Fed. 464; Re Berman, 165 Fed. 383; Re Sax, 141 Fed. 223; Re Goldfarb Bros. 131 Fed. 643; Epstein v. Steinfield, 127 C. C. A. 54, 210 Fed. 236; Re Nisenson, 182 Fed. 912; Re Stern, 215 Fed. 979. But we think that a bankrupt who is shown to have turned over generally his assets and property to the receiver or the trustee in bankruptcy is in a different situation from one not a bankrupt, who is under a duty to account in a summary proceeding. A court of bankruptcy should not make useless orders. If the bankrupt has turned over his property generally to the bankruptcy court, and is not shown to possess or control the specific property which is the subject of summary order, there may be a presumption that any order will be groundless. No such presumption obtains with respect to respondents. They have not -hown that they are insolvent, or in other [121] respects are unable to comly with the order of the district court. The judgment of the District Court was proper. The judgment of the Cireuit Court of Appeals is reversed. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 121–137.) burden of proof damage. Evidence 1 2. In case a lease of Indian land is fraudulently obtained from the guardian of Note.-On dealings with trust estate -see note to Massie v. Watts, 3 L. ed. U. S. 181. As to purchasers of trust estate, generally, see note to Wormley v. Wormley, 5 L. ed. U. S. 651. On trustees ex maleficio; when the relation exists-see note to Angle v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 38 L. ed. U. S. 55. As to estoppel by receiving benefitssee note to Michigan ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 38 L. ed. U.. S. 478. Guardian and ward 3. A secret agreement by the guardian of an Indian that he should be jointly interested in a lease of his ward's lands to a third person renders the whole transaction voidable at the option of the ward or his legal representatives. Guardian and ward ward to relief. what entitles ex maleficio - fraudulently securing ward's property. 7. One securing, through corrupt action of a guardian, property of the ward, becomes a trustee ex maleficio, and equitably bound to hold for the benefit of the ward, or, in case he disposes of the property, bound to hold the proceeds under like obligation. Trusts purchase of trust property with knowledge. 8. One who, with full knowledge of the facts, purchases from a guardian stock which he received as consideration for making a lease of his ward's property, takes subject to a trust in favor of the ward. Trusts bill to establish claim covery of proceeds. 9. A bill to establishi - re claim to specific property will support a an equitable recovery of the proceeds of the property if it develops in the course of the trial that the defendant has conveyed it away, in violation of his equitable obligation to plain tiff. Estoppel effect of agreement not to appeal. 10. A mere agreement by one seeking to set aside a lease of a ward's lands not to appeal from a decree establishing title in remote assignees as bona fide holders does not confirm the lease, so as to prevent recovery of the proceeds from those who fraudulently procured the lease. Barnsdall v. Owen, 118 C. C. A. 623, 200 Fed. 519; Mandler v. Rains, 70 Okla. 224, 174 Pac. 240; Anicker v. Gunsburg, 141 C. C. A. 174, 226 Fed. 178. The estate of the minor was in no way bound by the act of J. J. Eaves in affixing his name as curator to the blank paper. Lowery v. Westheimer, 58 Okla. 560, 160 Pac. 496; Agricultural Bank v. Rice, 4 How. 225, 11 L. ed. 949; 8 R. C. L. "Decds," § 29; Stone v. Sledge, 87 Tex. 49, 47 Am. St. Rep. 65, 26 S. W. 1068; Thompson v. Johnson, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 246, 58 S. W. 1030; Le Blanc v. Jackson, Tex. Civ. App. —, 161 S. W. 60; Jackson v. Craigen, Tex. Civ. App. —, 167 S. W. 1101; Frank Oil Co. v. Belleview Gas & Oil Co. 29 Okla. 719, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 487, 119 Pac. 260; Barnsdall Oil Co. v. Leahy, 115 C. C. A. 521, 195 Fed. 731; Bettman v. Harness, 42 W. Va. 433, Argued March 13, 1925. Decided April 13, 36 L.R.A. 566, 26 S. E. 271, 18 Mor. Min. 1925. PPEAL by complainant from a decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, affirming a decree of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, dismissing a bill seeking the cancelation of a lease of certain Indian land. Reversed in part. See same case below, 288 Fed. 158. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. W. W. Dyar argued the cause for appellant. Rep. 500; Thornton Oil & Gas, § 291; Dunn and Gillam are estopped from denying the validity of the lease executed by A. N. Thomas, as guardian of the Allie Daney estate. Avey v. Van Voorhis, 42 Okla. 232, 140 Pac. 615; Anchor Steam Bottling Works v. Baumle, 53 Okla. 103, 155 Pac. 518. In order for fraud to be actionable it is not necessary that any particular amount of pecuniary loss be sustained. It is sufficient if fraud actually exists, and any amount of financial injury results therefrom. Special Assistant to the Attorney 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. 14th ed. § 898; General Walter A. Ledbetter also ar- Spreckels v. Gorrill, 152 Cal. 383, 92 gued the cause, and, with Solicitor Gen- Pac. 1011; Wainscott V. Occidental eral Beck, filed a brief for appellant: Bldg. & L. Asso. 98 Cal. 257, 33 Pac. 88; The oil and gas lease in controversy having been executed under a fraudulent agreement by which the guardian, A. N. Thomas, and his uncle, D. Thomas, and others, were to have and own a secret interest in the lease for their personal and private use and benefit, and the agreement having been executed, the lease is fraudulent and void in so far as T. H. Dunn and J. Robert Gillam, who actively participated in the fraudulent agreement, are concerned. 26 C. J. 1171; Burton v. Compton, 50 Okla. 365, 150 Pac. 1080; Winsted v. Shank, 68 Okla. 269, 173 Pac. 1041; Allison v. Crummey, 64 Okla. 20, 166 Pac. 691; Chastain v. Pender, 52 Okla. 133, 152 Pac. 833; Vaughn v. Vaughn, 65 Okla. 1, 162 Pac. 1131; Imboden v. Hunter, 23 Ark. 622, 79 Am. Dec. 116. The trial court and the United States circuit court of appeals erred in not rendering judgment against defendants T. H. Dunn and wife and J. Robert Gillam and wife, for all moneys received by each or any of them from the proceeds of the oil and gas derived from the premises covered by the oil and gas lease in controversy, or from the stock of the Mann v. Brady, 80 Okla. 299, 196 Pac. 346; Allison v. Crummey, 64 Okla. 20, 166 Pac. 691; Winsted v. Shank, 68 Okla. 269, 173 Pac. 1041; Burton v. Compton, 50 Okla. 365, 150 Pac. 1080. Concealment of fraud by the guardian | Bull Head Oil Company. and the lessees rendered the lease illegal and void. 1 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 369; Heinrich v. Heinrich, 2 Cal. App. 479, 84 Pac. 326: 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1053; Angle v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 151 U. S. 1, 38 L. ed. 55, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240; Arnold v. Smith, 121 Minn. 116, 140 N. W. 749; Johnston v. McKenna, 77 N. J. Eq. 555, 78 Atl. 19; Sullivan v. Ramsey, Tex. Civ. App. —, 155 S. W. 580. Mr. George S. Ramsey argued the cause, and, with Messrs. William B. Johnson, Hugh W. McGill, Edgar A. de Meules, and Villard Martin, filed a brief for appellees T. H. and N. E. Dunn: At all times from November, 1905, until September 12, 1914, J. J. Eaves was duly appointed, qualified, legal and acting curator or guardian of the estate of Allie Daney, and as such was the only person empowered by law to execute an oil lease on the 40 acres of land in ques tion. nell v. Day, 61 Ark. 464, 33 S. W. 731; Reed v. Vaughan, 15 Mo. 137, 55 Am. Dec. 133; Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 9. Two separate and distinct guardianships or curatorships cannot exist at the same time for one and the same person. 690; 15 C. J. 822. The signing and executing of the lease by J. J. Eaves, as curator of Allie Eaves' does not appear in the body of Daney, although the name of J. J. the lease, made it a valid lease from J. J. Eaves, curator. 160 Pac. 496; 1 Devlin, Deeds, 3d ed. Lowery v. Westheimer, 58 Okla. 560, § 204; 1 Underhill, Land & T. § 238; Texas P. Coal & Oil Co. v. Patton, Woerner, Guardianship, p. 112; Re Danneker, 67 Cal. 643, 8 Pac. 514; Duncan v. Crook, 49 Mo. 116; Scott v. McGirth, 41 Okla. 520, 139 Pac. 519; Eaves v. Mullen, 25 Okla. 679, 107 Pac. 35 L.R.A.(N.S.) 964, 109 Pac. 922; 433; Burdett v. Burdett, 26 Okla. 416, Crosbie v. 388; Re Chambers, 46 Okla. 139, 148 Brewer, 68 Okla. 16, 158 Pac. Am. St. Rep. 43, 60 Pac. 762; Re rady, Pac. 148; Re Henning, 128 Cal. 214, 79 10 Idaho, 366, 79 Pac. 75; Wackerle v. People, 168 Ill. 250, 48 N. E. 123; ArMaHarry v. Eatman, 29 Okla. 46, 116 mour Packing Co. v. Howe, 68 Kan. 663, 75 Pac. 1014; Dorman v. Ogbourne, 16 Pac. 935; Ex parte Petterson, 166 Fed. 536; Marks v. Marks, 75 Fed. 321; Taylon, 16 Ind. App. 374, 43 N. E. 151; Ala. 759; J. F. Seiberling & Co. v. Newlor v. Jeter, 33 Ga. 195, 81 Am. Dec. Sanford v. Sanford, 23 Conn. 6; 11 Cyc. 202; Hiestand v. Kuns, 8 Blackf. 345, 46 Am. Dec. 481; Lacy v. Williams, 27 Mo. 280; Somerville v. Somerville, 5 Ves. Jr. 750, 31 Eng. Reprint, 839. 9 Eng. Rul. Cas. 730, 1 A. R. C. 284; Wheeler v. Hollis, 19 Tex. 522, 70 Am. Dec. 363, 1 A. R. C. 359; Tiffany, Persons & Dom. Rel. p. 292; Rodgers, Dom. | Rel. § 656; Powers v. Mortee, Fed. Cas. No. 11,362; Jenkins v. Clark, 71 Iowa, 552, 32 N. W. 504; Hathaway v. Hoffman, 53 Okla. 72, 153 Pac. 184; Baker v. Cureton, 49 Okla. 15, 150 Pac. 1090; Rice, 4 How. 225, 11 L. ed. 949; Kelle238 S. W. 202; Agricultural Bank v. Scott v. Abraham, 60 Okla. 10, 159 Pac. her v. Fong, 108 Me. 181, 79 Atl. 466; 270; Johnson v. Johnson, 60 Okla. 206, Montanye v. Wallahan, 84 Ill. 355: 159 Pac. 1121; Tucker v. Leonard, 76 Julicher v. Connelly, 52 Misc. 655, 102 Okla. 16, 183 Pac. 907; Lowery v. Par- N. Y. Supp. 620; Hackett v. Marmet Co. ton, 65 Okla. 232, 165 Pac. 164; Wake- 3 C. C. A. 76, 8 U. S. App. 149, 52 Fed. anan v. Peter, 52 Okla. 639, 152 Pac. 455; 268; Driskill v. Ashley, 259 Mo. 1, 167 Rice v. Theimer, 45 Okla. 618, 146 Pac. S. W. 1026; Ann. Cas. 1916A, 868; Rob702; Re Latour, 148 Cal. 414, 73 Pac. erts v. McIntire, 84 Me. 362, 24 Atl. 867; 1070, 74 Pac. 441; Dungan v. Superior Sterling v. Park, 129 Ga. 309, 13 L.R.A. Ct. 149 Cal. 98, 117 Am. St. Rep. 119, 84 (N.S.) 298, 121 Am. St. Rep. 224, 58 S. Pac. 767; Welch v. Focht, 67 Okla. 275, E. 828, 12 Ann. Cas. 201; Hrouska_v. L.R.A.1918D, 1163, 171 Pac. 730; Re Janke, 66 Wis. 252, 28 N. W. 166; InDanneker, 67 Cal. 643, 8 Pac. 514; surance Co. of Tenn. v. Waller, 116 M'Cormick V. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. Tenn. 1, 115 Am. St. Rep. 763, 95 S. W. 192, 6 L. ed. 300; Ex parte Watkins, 811, 7 Ann Cas. 1078; Hargis v. Dit3 Pet. 193, 7 L. ed. 650; Kennedy more, 86 Ky. 653, 7 S. W. 141; Runyan v. Bank of Georgia, 8 How. 611, 12 v. Snyder, 45 Colo. 156, 100 Pac. 420; L. ed. 1219; Miller v. United States 3 Washb. Real Prop. 6th ed. § 2120. (Page v. United States) 11 Wall. 268, 20 L. ed. 135; Evers v. Watson, 156 U. S. 527, 39 L. ed. 520, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 430; Skirving v. National L. Ins. Co. 8 C. C. A. 241, 19 U. S. App. 442, 59 Fed. 742; Livingston v. Van Ingen, 1 Paine, 48, Fed. Cas. No. 8,420; McCon Tex. Appellant was guardian of Allie Daney, the full-blood Indian, and had full power to compromise this case, especially with the approval of the court of appeals, which was given. Marchie Tiger v. Western Invest. Co. 221 U. S. 286, 55 L. ed. 738. 31 Sup. V. Having elected to rescind, and having filed its suit in equity, the government cannot amend its bill in the court of appeals under a stipulation with a part of the defendants, and without the knowledge and consent of the Gillams, and thereby convert the suit into an action at law for damages. Ct. Rep. 578; United States v. Kagama, cause and filed a brief for J. Robert 118 U. S. 375-384, 30 L. ed. 228-231, Gillam et ux.: Sup. Ct. Rep. 1109; Heckman United States, 224 U. S. 413, 56 L. ed. 820, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424; Goat v. United States, 224 U. S. 459, 56 L. ed. 343, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541; Privett v. United States, 256 U. S. 201, 65 L. ed. 889, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 455; Bowling v. United States, 233 U. S. 528-535, 58 L. ed. 1080-1083, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 659; United States v. Bowling, 256 U. S. 484, 65 L. ed. 1054, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 561; Brader v. James, 246 U. S. 88, 62 L. ed. 591, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 285; Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 444, 56 L. ed. 832, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424; Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant & R. Co. 168 U. S. 451, 42 L. ed. 539, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 121; Gusdofer v. Gundy, 72 Miss. 312, 16 So. 432; Cannon v. Hemphill, 7 Tex. 184; Gunter v. Fox, 51 Tex. 383; Hollis v. Dashiell, 52 Tex. 187; Verdine v. Cosden, 96 Okla. 52, 220 Pac. 329. The Eaves curatorship survived statehood. Eaves v. Mullen, 25 Okla. 679, 107 Pac. 433; Burdett v. Burdett, 26 Okla. 416, 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 964, 109 Pac. 922; Mallarry v. Eatinan, 29 Okla. 46, 116 Pac. 935; Scott v. McGirth, 41 Okla. 520, 139 Pac. 519; Crosbie v. Brewer, 68 Okla. 16, 158 Pac. 388, 173 Pac. 441. The county court of Love county had jurisdiction to approve the lease executed by Eaves on the very day it was executed. Duff v. Keaton, 33 Okla. 92, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 472, 124 Pac. 291; Papoose Oil Co. v. Swindler, 95 Okla. 264, 221 Pac. 596; Cabin Valley Min. Co. v. Hall, 53 Okla. 760; L.R.A.1916F, 493, 155 Pac. 570; Jackson v. Gates Oil Co. 297 Fed. 549; Clayton v. Tibbens, 298 Fed. 18; Dewalt v. Cline, 35 Okla. 199, 128 Pac. 121; Soules v. Robinson, 158 Ind. 97. 92 Am. St. Rep. 301, 62 Ñ. E. 999; Gilbert v. Stephens, 106 Ga. 753, 32 S. E. 849; Estridge v. Estridge, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1076, 76 S. W. 1101; Wabash R. Co. v. Adelbert College, 208 N. S. 54, 52 L. ed. 386, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182; Palmer v. Texas, 212 U. S. 125, 53 L. ed. 438, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 230; Farmers' Loan & T. Co. v. Lake Street Elev. R. Co. 177 U. S. 51-61, 44 L. ed. 667-671, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Leonard v. Childers, 67 Okla. 226, 170 Pac. 247; Baird v. Engiand, 85 Okla. 276, 205 Pac. 1098; State ex rel. Monahawee v. Hazelwood, 81 Okla. 69, 196 Pac. 937. Mr. William G. Davisson argued the Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130-146, 15 L. ed. 158-163; Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 756–768, 28 L. ed. 1141-1145, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 771; Smith v. Woolfolk, 115 U. S. 145-150, 29 L. ed. 359, 360, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1177. Mr. Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the United States circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit from so much of its decree as affirms a decree of the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Oklahoma, dismissing the bill of the plaintiff-the appellant here. 288 Fed. 158. Suit was begun to cancel an oil and gas lease of 40 acres of land, given to appellees Dunn and Gillam by Thomas, guardian, and signed by Eaves, curator, of Allie Daney, a minor, full-blood Choctaw Indian. Both Thomas and Eaves claimed the right to represent the minor and to lease her land. Eaves was appointed curator [127] of the minor by the United States court for the southern district of the Indian Territory in November, 1905, and, on admission of the territory of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory to statehood as the state of Oklahoma, that court transmitted the curatorship record to the county court of Love county. Thomas was appointed guardian by the county court of Le Flore county in July, 1911. On August 18, 1913, Eaves executed a lease of the premises in question to one Mullen, which lease was approved by the county court of Love county. On the same day, Thomas, as guardian, executed a lease of the same premises to Dunn and Gillam, which lease was approved by the county court of Le Flore county. The two leases came to the Indian superintendent for his recommendation for approval by the Secretary of the Interior at about the same time. This developed a controversy between Mullen, on the other, as to whether Thomas or Eaves one hand, and Dunn and Gillam, on the properly represented the minor and had legal authority to enter into a lease of The suant to a secret agreement with the the minor's lands. A compromise was in the lease transferred by them purfinally effected between the contesting parties, whereby Eaves added his signature as curator to the lease which had been given by Thomas to Dunn and Gillam, and acknowledged it. At the same time the Bull Head Oil Company, a corporation and one of the defendants, was organized. The Thomas lease was assigned to it under an agreement that the lessees would take for their respective interests in the leasehold, equal shares of stock. The capital of the Bull Head Oil Company was fixed at $18,000, of which 8,000 shares of the capital stock of the company, having a par value of $8,000, were issued to Mullen, the lessee under the Eaves lease, and 8,000 shares were issued to Dunn, as trustee, for account of the lessees under the Thomas lease of the fraud in the execution of the and those claiming under them. The remainder of the capital stock was reserved and issued for other corporate purposes. [128] The bill of complaint joined as defendants the Bull Head Oil Company, Dunn and Gillam and their wives, and Mullen and others who were stockholders of the company. It charged that the Thomas lease was voidable because, as alleged, Thomas, the guardian, had been induced to execute the lease by a secret agreement with Dunn and Gillam to the effect that a one-fourth interest in the lease was to be transferred by them to a third person for the personal benefit of Thomas. The bill prayed that the minor, Allie Daney, be decreed to be the owner in fee of the lands described in the Thomas lease; that the defendants be adjudged to have no interest therein, and that they be required to account for the oil and gas taken from the land and for the money received by them as the proceeds of the oil and gas so taken, and, in the alternative, if, for any reason, the court should adjudge that the lease of the premises could not be canceled, then that the defendant stockholders be adjudged the holders of said stock respectively in trust for the minor, and that the plaintiff be awarded the custody thereof for her use and benefit, and that the defendants who are or at any time have been stockholders of the Bull Head Oil Company be required to account for all money received by them respectively, either as dividends or as proceeds of sale of their stock. original lease by Thomas, the guardian. The court also found that of the shares of stock acquired by Gillam as a result of the compromise entered into with Dunn and Gillam by Mullen, 3,266 shares, of which his wife, Mrs. Gillam, a party defendant, held 1,266 shares, were sold by them to one Hamon, a party defendant, for the sum of $75,000, and that Hamon was an innocent purchaser for value of the stock; that the defendant T. H. Dunn still retained his holdings in the stock of the company. There was also a finding that certain shares of the Dunn and Gillam stock transferred by them respectively to Mrs. Dunn and Mrs. Gillam were so transferred without consideration. Upon the basis of these findings the court entered its decree in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case. After the entry of the decree of the district court the plaintiff, acting by the Secretary of the Interior, entered into an agreement, approved by the Secretary and an Assistant Attorney General, with all the defendants other than the defendants Dunn and his wife and the defendants Gillam and his wife, whereby it was stipulated that, in any appeal which the United States should take from the decision of the district court in this cause, "the United States would neither ask nor insist upon a reversal of the said cause, or a recovery against the Bull Head Oil Company, or against any of the defendants in said cause, save and except T. H. Dunn,_N. E. Dunn [wife of T. H. Dunn], J. Robert Gillam and Mrs. J. Robert Gillam, On trial the court found that a part and that it will not insist upon any of the consideration moving Thomas, as judgment impressing a trust upon any guardian, to execute the lease to Dunn of the stock in the [130] Bull Head Oil and Gillam, was a one-fourth interest | Company heretofore owned by J. Robert |