Arenas v. United States
| Decision Date | 04 August 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 10219.,10219. |
| Citation | 137 F.2d 199 |
| Parties | ARENAS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Oliver O. Clark, David D. Sallee, Harry Ashton, and Robert A. Smith, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norman MacDonald, Atty., Dept. of Justice of Washington, D. C., and Irl D. Brett, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, DENMAN, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.
The appellant is a member of the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians of the Palm Springs Reservation in Riverside, California. He claims the right to certain land described in his complaint on the theory that the same has been allotted to him by the Secretary of the Interior. He admits that the points raised by him were disposed of by this court adversely to his claim in the case of St. Marie v. United States, 9 Cir., 108 F.2d 876. He claims, however, that that decision was in error and also that this case may be distinguished from the former decision upon the ground that it is admitted in the case at bar "that there had been a determination that the Indians in question were sufficiently advanced so as to comply with the act" under which the allotments were made. That case was predicated upon the theory that until the Secretary of Interior approved the alleged allotments there was no right thereto vested in the alleged allottee. In this case we follow the decision heretofore made in the St. Marie case.
The appellant also urges that there is an estoppel on the part of the federal authorities to question the validity of the alleged allotment to the appellant. There is no merit in this contention. Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 37 S.Ct. 387, 61 L.Ed. 791; Yuma County Water Users' Ass'n v. Schlecht, 262 U.S. 138, 43 S.Ct. 498, 67 L.Ed. 909.
Affirmed.
Congress by the Act of June 18, 1934, 25 U.S.C.A. § 461, has taken from the Secretary of Interior any power he theretofore had to allot lands, except with the consent of the tribe, such consent not here known to have been given. 25 U.S.C. A. § 478a. Unless Arenas had some legal or equitable right to the lands he claims, of which it would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment to deprive him, his claim here is invalid.
The Act of March 2, 1917, 39 Stat. 969, 976, does no more than change the acreage which the Secretary may allot under the Mission Indian Act of January 12, 1891, 26 Stat. 712. Under the latter Act the Indian has no such right of selection for the allotment and no such property right in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arenas v. United States
...had declared the law, rendered judgment in favor of the Government. The Court of Appeals agreed with this conclusion: Arenas v. United States, 9 Cir., 1943, 137 F.2d 199. But the Supreme Court called attention to the fact that the denial of certiorari had been solely on the ground of the un......
-
Arenas v. United States, 1321 O'C. Civil.
...was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the District Court's ruling was affirmed in Arenas v. United States, 9 Cir., 137 F.2d 199, the Circuit Court following its decision in the said St. Marie case under the doctrine of stare The Supreme Court of the United ......
-
Arenas v. United States
...throughout this long litigation. Arenas v. Preston, 9 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 77; Id., 9 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 62, 68; see Arenas v. United States, 9 Cir., 1943, 137 F.2d 199, reversed, 1944, 322 U.S. 419, 64 S.Ct. 1090, 88 L.Ed. 1363; Id. on remand, D.C.S.D.Cal.1945, 60 F.Supp. 411, affirmed i......
-
Arenas v. Preston
...181 F.2d 62 (1950). ARENAS. v. PRESTON et al. UNITED STATES et al. v. PRESTON et al. No. 12046. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. March 23, 1950.181 F.2d 63 John M. Ennis, ......