Langford v. Monteith

Decision Date01 October 1880
Citation26 L.Ed. 53,102 U.S. 145
PartiesLANGFORD v. MONTEITH
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Idaho.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The Attorney-General for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, contra.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

Langford, the plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, brought an action before a justice of the peace in the nature of forcible detainer, to revover of Charles E. Monteith the possession of buildings and grounds occupied by the latter under the agent of the United States for the Nez Perc e Indians.

The plaintiff, in his petition, charges that under a lease from him the defendant entered with a condition to deliver possession to the plaintiff on ten days' notice, which was given.

The defendant answers by alleging that at the time of making the lease he was in possession under John B. Monteith, Indian agent; that he was induced to take the lease by the false representation of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the property; that said buildings and grounds were then and are now the property of the United States; and that the government had issued orders to defend its possession against the plaintiff.

Another allegation of the defence is that the property is situated within an Indian reservation, to which the Indian title has never been extinguished, and therefore forms no part of the Territory of Idaho. Of course, if this latter allegation be true, neither the justice of the peace before whom the case was first tried, nor the District Court to which it afterwards came by appeal, had any jurisdiction over it. The opinion of this court in Harkness v. Hyde (98 U. S. 476) is relied on by the defendant.

The principle announced in that case is sound, namely, that when, by the act of Congress organizing a territorial government, lands are excepted out of the jurisdiction of the government thus brought into existence, they constitute no part of such Territory, although they are included within its boundaries. Congress, from which the power to exercise the new jurisdiction emanates, has undoubted authority to exclude therefrom any part of the soil of the United States, or of that whereto the Indians have the possessory title, when, by our solemn treaties with them, a stipulation to that effect has been made.

The applicability of this doctrine to the jurisdiction of places in which the United States have constructed permanent forts, arsenals, &c., before such governments are organized, will be seen at once. Congress has also acted on this principle on the admission of new States into the Union. The act for the admission of Kansas (12 Stat. 126), after describing its exterior boundaries, and declaring that the new State is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, adds, that nothing contained in the Constitution of the State shall be construed 'to include any territory which by treaty with such Indian tribe is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Territory; but all such territory shall be excepted our of the boundaries and constitute no part of the State of Kansas, until said tribe shall signify their assent to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Puget Sound Power Light Co v. City of Seattle, Wash 12 8212 15, 1934
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1934
    ...141, 288 P. 646, 70 A.L.R. 417. 4 Inaccurate statements of counsel sometimes lead to erroneous assumptions by courts. Langford v. Monteith, 102 U.S. 145, 147, 26 L.Ed. 53. 5 City of Louisville v. Commonwealth, 1 Duv. (62 Ky.) 295, 85 Am.Dec. 624; Commonwealth v. Makibben, 90 Ky. 384, 14 S.W......
  • Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 3
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1962
    ...as forbidden by federal law. Utah & Northern R. Co. v. Fisher, 116 U.S. 28, 31, 6 S.Ct. 246, 247, 29 L.Ed. 542. In Langford v. Monteith, 102 U.S. 145, 26 L.Ed. 53, the Court held that process might be served within a reservation for a suit in territorial court between two non-Indians. In Un......
  • King v. McAndrews
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 28, 1901
    ... ... courts, is not material to the issue in this case, and it is ... accordingly conceded. Nothing more is held in Langford v ... Monteith, 102 U.S. 145, 147, 26 L.Ed. 43; Railway ... Co. v. Fisher, 116 U.S. 28, 6 Sup.Ct. 246, 29 L.Ed. 542; ... Draper v. U.S, 164 ... ...
  • State ex rel. Peterson v. District Court of Ninth Judicial Dist., 5242
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1980
    ...cited past case law allowing the exercise of state jurisdiction within a reservation: Utah & Northern Railway, supra; Langford v. Monteith, 102 U.S. 145, 26 L.Ed. 53 (1880)-process may be served within a reservation for a suit in territorial court between two non-Indians; United States v. M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT