Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 180

Decision Date13 April 1896
Docket NumberNo. 180,180
Citation40 L.Ed. 970,162 U.S. 283,16 S.Ct. 828
PartiesSENECA NATION OF INDIANS v. CHRISTY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

James C. Strong, for plaintiff in error.

Morris Morey, for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of ejectment brought by the Seneca Nation of Indians against Harrison B. Christy in the supreme court, Erie county, N. Y., to recover possession of 'all that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying, and being in the town of Brant, county of Erie, and state of New York, and known and distinguished as being lot number twenty-five (25) in the tract of land known as being the three thousand eight hundred and forty acre tract taken from the Cattaraugus Indian reservation, as surveyed by James Read, surveyor, and commonly known as the 'Mile Strip' in the said town of Brant, and containing one hundred acres,'—and for damages.

The complaint was verified December 1, 1885; and the answer, January 11, 1886. The answer consisted of a general denial, the plea of the statute of limitations of 20 years, and that the plaintiff had not the legal right, title, capacity, or authority to maintain the action. The case was tried upon facts stipulated, and documentary evidence.

The premises in question were part of a large tract of land in the western part of the state of New York, the title to which was in controversy between the states of New York and Massachusetts prior to the adoption of the federal constitution, which controversy was settled by a compact between those states, December 16, 1786. By that compact the state of New York ceded, granted, released, and confirmed to the state of Massachusetts and its grantees, their heirs and assigns, forever, the right of pre-emption of the soil from the native Indians, and all other estate, right, title, and property therein belonging to the state of New York; but New York retained the right of government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction. Massachusetts was empowered to hold treaties and conferences with the native Indians to extinguish the Indian title; and it was provided that that commonwealth might grant the right of pre-emption of the whole or any part of said lands and territories to any person or persons who, by virtue of such grant, should have a good right to extinguish by purchase the claims of the native Indians, provided that such purchase should be made in the presence of a superintendent appointed by Massachusetts, and be approved by the commonwealth. This compact was duly ratified by the United States after the adoption of the federal constitution.

By a treaty between the Six Nations of Indians, which included the Senecas, and the United States, dated November 11, 1794, at Canandaigua, N. Y.,—Timothy Pickering acting as commissioner on behalf of the United States (7 Stat. 44),—it was agreed that the lands of the Senecas situated in the western part of the state of New York, described in the treaty (embracing the land in controversy), 'shall remain theirs until they choose to sell to the people of the United States who have the right to purchase.'

Prior to August 31, 1826, all the right of preemption and title of Massachusetts in a large part of these lands had been conveyed by sundry mesne conveyances to Robert Troup, Thomas L. Ogden, and Benjamin W. Rogers. By a treaty and conveyance on that day the Seneca Nation, by its sachems, chiefs, and warriors, in the presence of a superintendent on behalf of the state of Massachusetts and a commissioner appointed by the United States, conveyed a tract of 87,000 acres of the lands, including that in suit, to Troup, Ogden, and Rogers, for the consideration of $48,216, acknowledged by the deed to have been in hand paid. This conveyance was approved and confirmed by the state of Massachusetts, but the treaty was not ratified by the senate of the United States, or proclaimed by the president.

Soon after the making of said treaty or conveyance, Troup, Ogden, and Rogers entered into full and exclusive possession of the lands described therein. They were divided into parcels, sold, and conveyed, extensive and valuable improvements were made thereon, and for more than 50 years they have been in the possession of the grantees and purchasers under them, claiming title under the grant, and without protest on the part of the United States, the state, or the Seneca Nation. Defendant held title from Troup, Ogden, and Rogers, and their grantees, and at the beginning of this action was in possession, claiming under and by virtue thereof.

In 1827 the sum of $43,050 of the consideration set forth in the conveyance of August 31, 1826, was deposited in the Ontario Bank, at Canandaigua, N. Y.; and afterwards, and in the year 1855, that sum was, pursuant to section 3 of an act of congress of June 27, 1846 (9 Stat. 20, 35, c. 34), paid into the treasury of the United States. The interest thereon from 1827 has been annually paid to and received by plaintiff in error.

Plaintiff in rror contended that no valid purchase was made by the treaty of August 31, 1826, because that treaty was not formally ratified by the senate of the United States, and proclaimed as such by the president of the United States; and, further, that the purchase was invalid because in contravention of the twelfth section of the act of congress of March 30, 1802, 'to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes.' 2 Stat. 139, c. 13.

This action was brought by the Seneca Nation under an act of the state of New York of May 8, 1845, entitled 'An act for the protection and improvement of the Seneca Indians residing on the Cattaraugus and Allegany reservations in this state.' Laws N. Y. 1845, p. 146, c. 150 (Rev. St. N. Y. [7th Ed.] 295). The first section of this act reads as follows:

'Section 1 The Seneca Indians residing on the Allegany and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida, New York
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1974
    ...v. Smith, 13 Pet. 195, 10 L.Ed. 123 (1839); Lattimer's Lessee v. Poteet, 14 Pet. 4, 10 L.Ed. 328 (1840); Seneca Nation v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283, 16 S.Ct. 828, 40 L.Ed. 970 (1896). 'Outside of the territory of the original colonies, the ultimate fee is located in the United States and may be......
  • Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • October 25, 2018
    ...successor-in-interest. See Oneida Indian Nation v. Cty. of Oneida, 414 U.S. at 670, 94 S.Ct. 772 ; Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283, 284, 16 S.Ct. 828, 40 L.Ed. 970 (1896). Alongside the restraint on alienation was the exclusive power to purchase Indian land, traditionally ......
  • Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • September 2, 2020
    ...See Oneida Indian Nation v. Cty. of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 670, 94 S.Ct. 772, 39 L.Ed.2d 73 (1974) ; Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283, 288, 16 S.Ct. 828, 40 L.Ed. 970 (1896). Alongside the restraint on alienation was the exclusive power to purchase Indian land, traditionally......
  • Oneida Indian Nation of NY State v. County of Oneida, NY
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 12, 1972
    ...representatives of New York State procured the cession by "treaty," see Federal Indian Law 513 n. 6; cf. Seneca Nation v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283, 16 S.Ct. 828, 40 L.Ed. 970 (1896), of a large portion of these lands, again for what now seems an inadequate consideration and allegedly was so ev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 15 COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT WITH INDIAN TRIBES: FINANCE AND LENDING IN INDIAN COUNTRY
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Energy & Mineral Development in Indian Country (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...for lack of original jurisdiction and therefore did not interpret the Non-Intercourse Act), Seneca Nations of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 (1896)(the Supreme Court declined, because of the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine, to review the merits of the New York court ruling......

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