Bessie Brown English v. Richardson, No. 559
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Lamar |
| Citation | 32 S.Ct. 571,56 L.Ed. 949,224 U.S. 680 |
| Docket Number | No. 559 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1912 |
| Parties | BESSIE BROWN ENGLISH, Piff. in Err., v. H. T. RICHARDSON, County Treasurer of Tulsa County |
v.
H. T. RICHARDSON, County Treasurer of Tulsa County.
Messrs. W. L. Sturdevant and Grant Foreman for plaintiff in error.
Mr. M. L. Mott for the Creek Nation.
Mr. Charles West, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff holds a patent dated December 12, 1902. It was issued to her as a member of the Creek Nation when the tribal lands were divided in pursuance of the same general policy as that discussed in Choate v. Trapp, just decided. [224 U. S. 665, 56 L. ed. ——, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 565.] There were, however, a few differences. The tax exemption covered only the homestead of 40 acres,
Page 681
and there was a restriction on alienability for twenty-one years. The patent, instead of being 'framed in conformity with the agreement,' as in the case of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, bore on its face a provision that the land should be nontaxable; the language of the agreement incorporated in the act of Congress being that 'each citizen shall select from his allotment 40 acres of land . . . as a homestead, which shall be and remain nontaxable, inalienable, and free from any encumbrance whatever for twenty-one years from the date of the deed therefor, and a separate deed shall be issued to each allottee for his homestead, in which this condition shall appear.' [32 Stat. at L. 503, chap. 1323, § 16.]
These differences are not material. The right of plaintiff to the exemption granted by Congress is protected by the Constitution on principles stated and applied in Choate v. Trapp. The judgment dismissing her complaint is therefore reversed, and the case remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with that opinion.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruner v. U.S., No. 02-CV-504-H(C).
...because this attempt to curtail the exemption occurred before the expiration of the established period of time. In English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680, 32 S.Ct. 571, 56 L.Ed. 949 (1912), decided the same day as Choate, a Creek plaintiff was granted a tax exemption following the reasoning in......
-
In re Gross Prod. Tax of Wolverine Oil Co., Case Number: 7426
...v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 32 S. Ct. 565, 56 L. Ed. 941; Gleason v. Wood, 224 U.S. 679, 32 S. Ct. 571. 56 L. Ed. 947; English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680, 32 S. Ct. 571, 56 L. Ed. 949. It could not successfully be contended, nor has it to our knowledge ever been claimed, that because of the no......
-
Gully v. Wilmut Gas & Oil Co, 32075
...303, 7 Cranch 164, 165; Shoats v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 675, 56 L.Ed. 946; Gleason v. Wood, 244 U.S. 679, 56 L.Ed. 947; English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680, 56 L.Ed. 949; Grand Canyon R. Co. v. Treat, 95 P. 189; Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. State Board, 71 A. 329. Initially, the Legislature ......
-
United States v. Board of Com'rs of McIntosh County, 2594
...the tribe by virtue of the treaties providing for allotment. Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 32 Sup.Ct. 565, 56 L.Ed. 941; Gleason v. Wood, 224 U.S. 680, 32 Sup.Ct. 571, 56 L.Ed. 947; English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680, 32 Sup.Ct. 571, 56 L.Ed. 949. On April 26, 1906, the allotment of land ......
-
Bruner v. U.S., No. 02-CV-504-H(C).
...because this attempt to curtail the exemption occurred before the expiration of the established period of time. In English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680, 32 S.Ct. 571, 56 L.Ed. 949 (1912), decided the same day as Choate, a Creek plaintiff was granted a tax exemption following the reasoning in......
-
In re Gross Prod. Tax of Wolverine Oil Co., Case Number: 7426
...v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 32 S. Ct. 565, 56 L. Ed. 941; Gleason v. Wood, 224 U.S. 679, 32 S. Ct. 571. 56 L. Ed. 947; English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680, 32 S. Ct. 571, 56 L. Ed. 949. It could not successfully be contended, nor has it to our knowledge ever been claimed, that because of the no......
-
Gully v. Wilmut Gas & Oil Co, 32075
...303, 7 Cranch 164, 165; Shoats v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 675, 56 L.Ed. 946; Gleason v. Wood, 244 U.S. 679, 56 L.Ed. 947; English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680, 56 L.Ed. 949; Grand Canyon R. Co. v. Treat, 95 P. 189; Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. State Board, 71 A. 329. Initially, the Legislature ......
-
United States v. Board of Com'rs of McIntosh County, 2594
...the tribe by virtue of the treaties providing for allotment. Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 32 Sup.Ct. 565, 56 L.Ed. 941; Gleason v. Wood, 224 U.S. 680, 32 Sup.Ct. 571, 56 L.Ed. 947; English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680, 32 Sup.Ct. 571, 56 L.Ed. 949. On April 26, 1906, the allotment of land ......