Mullen v. United States, 224 U.S. 448; Doe v. Wilson, 23 How. 457; Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, distinguished. So held where the lands claimed were selected and allotted in lieu of other lands, described in the deeds, which had been selected before the deeds were made but were afterwards allotted to other selectors. 56 Okla. 65; 57 id. 186, affirmed. THE cases are stated in the opinion.

In Lynch v. Franklin, 37 Okla. 60, 130 P. 599, it appears that one Emma Sisson, who was an applicant for enrollment by intermarriage in the Choctaw Tribe of Indians, executed a warranty deed to Apple and Franklin, a firm of lawyers, whereby she attempted to convey the surplus land to which she would be entitled when enrolled, without describing said land. Thereafter she was enrolled, and it was held that the "doctrine of relation" as found in section 642, Mansfield's Digest of Laws of Arkansas, was not applicable, for the reason that the land was not alienable at said time, and that said attempted alienation was void. This case was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Franklin v. Lynch et al., 233 U.S. 269, 58 L.Ed. 954. Other cases the same in principle, but slightly different in circumstances, are Starr v. Long Jim, 227 U.S. 613, 57 L.Ed. 670; Mullen et al. v. Pickins et al., 56 Okla. 65, 155 P. 871, 64 L.Ed. 22; Vann et al. v. Adams et al., 63 Okla. 230, 164 P. 113. However, it is insisted by counsel for defendant that none of said cases are in point, and the argument is made that, the allottee being a Cherokee freedman, there were no restrictions against the alienability of the land except that he was personally powerless to contract with relation to such land during minority. It is further contended that the plaintiffs, adult freedmen, were under no restrictions whatever on May 13, 1904, and that they are now estopped from asserting the title acquired by them upon the death of the allottee, and that said title, when so acquired, immediately inured to the benefit of their grantee.

See, also, Wallace v. Adams, 143 Fed. 716, 74 C. C. A. 540; Sanders v. Sanders, 28 Okla. 59, 117 P. 338; Robinson et al. v. Caldwell et al., 55 Okla. 701, 155 P. 547. In Mullen et al. v. Pickens et al., 56 Okla. 65, 155 P. 871, it was held: "A warranty deed from a restricted full-blood Choctaw Indian of September 23, 1905, whereby she conveyed all her interest in and to the theretofore selected allotment of her deceased mother, and which deed contained a provision: 'That I further warrant and covenant with the said J.S. Mullen and L.V. Mullen and W.M. Bonner, that if for any reason the allotment of the said Eliza Bell, deceased, as described, be canceled, set aside, and held for naught, and afterwards be filed at any point in the Choctaw or Chickasaw country, that this deed and its warranties and covenants shall apply to said lands so hereafter selected the same as if it were described in this instrument, and if it be necessary for me to hereafter execute the deed to the lands so selected, I hereby covenant and warrant to the said J.S. Mullen and L.V. Mullen, their heirs, legal representatives, and assigns that I will so execute said deed' — did not by virtue of said provision, when subsequent thereto th