Blanset v. Cardin
| Decision Date | 16 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 244,244 |
| Citation | 256 U.S. 319,65 L.Ed. 950,41 S.Ct. 519 |
| Parties | BLANSET v. CARDIN et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Henry C. Lewis, of Washington, D. C., and Paul A. Ewert, of Joplin, Mo., for appellant.
Mr. A. C. Wallace, of Miami, Okl., for appellees.
Mr. Leslie C. Garnett, of Washington, D. C., for United States, by special leave.
Appellant brought this suit to have himself declared to be owner of an undivided one-third interest in all lands (they are described in the bill) and other property of which his wife, Fannie Crawfish Blanset, died seised or possessed, free and clear of all claims and demands of the appellees, and to declare void a will of his wife and its approval by the Secretary of the Interior.
The basis of the bill is the contention that under the laws of Oklahoma no man and no woman while married shall bequeath more than two-thirds of his or her property away from the other and that the prohibition extends to an Indian woman's allotment, under acts of Congress, of restricted lands.
The bill is quite involved and contains many repetitions. Its ultimate propositions may be paraphrased as follows: Appellant is a white man, and his wife, Fannie Crawfish Blanset, was an Indian woman of the Quapaw Tribe. She was an allottee of the lands herein involved which were restricted lands so called; that is, nonalienable for the period of 25 years. She made a will devising her land to appellees, they being her children or grandchildren, and bequeathed to them also all trust funds which might be held by the United States for her. The will was approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs and by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior under and in pursuance of the provisions of an Act of Congress of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 858, 859), as amended February 14, 1913 (37 Stat. 678 [Comp. St. § 4228]), and filed in the office of the Secretary of the Interior, where such wills are properly and lawfully filed, and are of record.
Congress, by the foregoing and other legislation, provided:
'That the state laws of descent should apply to Indian allotments and to interests therein, and that the Secretary of the Interior should be governed by the same,' and that 'section 8341 of the Code of Oklahoma created an indefeasible descent in favor of the husband and that the will of a wife which attempts to will away from her husband more than two-thirds of her estate is therefore void, and of no effect to the extent to which it attempts so to do, and that in such case the husband takes by descent to the same extent.'
By that section appellant is made heir to property worth $40,000 of the estate of his wife, while the will gives him only $5; that the will is null and void, and that to the extent of his heirship his wife died intestate, and that he is an heir at law of one-third of her estate, that notwithstanding section 8341 each of the appellees is claiming to be the owner of a one-third undivided interest in and to all of the remaining restricted lands, inherited or otherwise, of which Fannie Crawfish Blanset died possessed and of a one-third interest to all trust funds held by the United States to her use and benefit, such claims being made under and by virtue of the will.
There is an allegation in the bill to the effect that appellant's wife left little or no personal property except moneys held in trust for her from the sale of inherited Indian lands by the United States; that by section 8419 dower and curtesy were abolished, and by section 8418 it was provided as follows:
section 6328 it is provided:
'Upon the death of either husband or wife, the survivor may continue to possess and occupy the whole homestead, which shall not in any event be subject to administration proceedings, until it is otherwise disposed of according to law; and upon the death of both husband and wife the children may continue to possess and occupy the whole homestead until the youngest child becomes of age.'
It is alleged:
'That section 1 of the Act of June 25, 1910 [Comp. St. § 4226], of which the Act of February 14, 1913, is amendatory, is as follows: 'That when any Indian to whom an allotment of land has been made, or may hereafter be made, dies before the expiration of the trust period and before the issuance of a fee-simple patent, without having made a will disposing of said allotment as hereinafter provided, the Secretary of the Interior, upon notice and hearing, under such rules as he may prescribe, shall ascertain the legal heirs of such decedent."
On motion of defendants (appellees here) the bill was dismissed for want of equity. The ruling was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case is not in broad compass and presents as its ultimate question the accordance or discordance of the laws of Congress and the laws of the state; and whether there is accordance or discordance depends upon a comparison of section 8341 of the Oklahoma Code, upon which appellant relies, and the acts of Congress referred to in the bill and what was done under them.
That comparison we proceed to make. By section 8341 of the Code:
'Every estate and interest in real or personal property to which heirs, husband, widow, or next of kin might succeed, may be disposed of by will: Provided, that no marriage contract in writing has been entered into between the parties; no man while married shall bequeath more than two-thirds of his property away from his wife, nor shall any woman while married be queath more than two-thirds of her property away from her husband. * * *'
The provision of the Code is determinative, appellant contends, because the law of 'descents and distributions' of Arkansas was made applicable to the Indian Territory May 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 94, 95), and extended in its application in 1904 (33 Stat. 573), and, while at those times 'testamentary power had not been given to restricted allottees [the property in this case was a restricted allotment and the period of restriction had not expired] of any tribe but property descended, as to all tribes, wherever located, according to the local law,' yet when Oklahoma was admitted as a state the Arkansas law was superseded by the Oklahoma Code. For this Jefferson v. Fink, 247 U. S. 288, 38 Sup. Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States ex rel. Townsend v. Twomey
-
Cunningham v. Potts
...161; United States v. Ill. Central Ry. (D. C.) 234 F. 433; United States v. Graham & Irvine (D. C.) 250 F. 499; Blanset v. Cardin, 256 U. S. 319, 41 S. Ct. 519, 65 L. Ed. 950; McLaren v. Fleischer, 256 U. S. 477, 41 S. Ct. 577, 65 L. Ed. 1052; First Nat. Bank v. Missouri, 263 U. S. 640, 44 ......
-
Hanson v. Hoffman
...issue of that marriage. See transcript of record, pp. 246, 345, in United States v. Apple, 8 Cir., 292 F. 935. 3 Blanset v. Cardin, 256 U.S. 319, 326, 41 S.Ct. 519, 65 L.Ed. 950; Id., 8 Cir., 261 F. 309, 312, 313; Sperry Oil & Gas Co. v. Chisholm, 264 U.S. 488, 495, 44 S.Ct. 372, 68 L.Ed. 8......
-
Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes v. Nordwick
...539 (1926); Swendig v. Washington Water Power Co., 265 U.S. 322, 331, 44 S.Ct. 496, 68 L.Ed. 1036 (1924); Blanset v. Cardin, 256 U.S. 319, 326, 41 S.Ct. 519, 65 L.Ed. 950 (1921); McLaren v. Fleischer, 256 U.S. 477, 481, 41 S.Ct. 577, 65 L.Ed. 1052 (1921); LaRoque v. United States, 239 U.S. ......
-
CHAPTER 5 TITLE EXAMINATION OF INDIAN LANDS
...sub. nom Akers v. Morton, 499 F.2d 44 (9th Cir. 1974). [73] Estate of William Cecil Robedeaux, supra, n.70. [74] Blanset v. Cardin, 256 U.S. 319, 41 S.Ct. 519, 65 L.Ed. 950, (1921). [75] 25 U.S.C. § 373. [76] Presently 43 C.F.R. Part 4. [77] In practice, Administrative Law Judges appear to ......
-
CHAPTER 4 TITLE EXAMINATION OF INDIAN LANDS
...sub. nom Akers v. Morton, 499 F.2d 44 (9th Cir. 1974). [81] Estate of William Cecil Robedeaux, supra, n.78. [82] Blanset v. Cardin, 256 U.S. 319, 41 S.Ct. 519, 65 L.Ed. 950, (1921). [83] 25 U.S.C. § 373. [84] Presently 43 C.F.R. Part 4. [85] In practice, Administrative Law Judges appear to ......