Boxley v. Scott
Decision Date | 09 January 1917 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 7617 |
Citation | 1917 OK 85,62 Okla. 152,162 P. 688 |
Parties | BOXLEY v. SCOTT et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Indians--Homestead Allotments--Lease. In August, 1913, the guardian of a half-blood Creek Indian leased his surplus and homestead allotments for four years to C., with the approval of the proper county court, but without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Held, that said lease was void as to the homestead portion of said allotment and valid as to the surplus portion of same.
2. Same--Conveyances. A half-blood Creek Indian minor dies in August, 1914, unmarried, without issue, and intestate, leaving as his sole heir at law his mother, P., a full-blood Creek Indian. In September, 1914, B. takes a warranty deed to the entire 160-acre allotment of her deceased son from said full-blood heir, P., and has the same duly recorded, but does not have the same approved by the proper county court. In March, 1915, S. takes a deed from said full-blood heir, P., to said allotment, and has the same duly approved by the proper county court and then duly recorded. Held, that the deed from P. to B. is void, and the deed from P. to S. is valid and conveys the entire allotment in fee simple to S., subject to the rights of C. under his lease as to the 120-acre surplus portion of same.
3. Indians--Indian Lands--Restrictions. It is within the power of Congress to continue or extend the period of restriction against alienation, or provide for other restrictions during the period of existing restrictions against alienation.
Warren & Crutcher and J. L. Skinner, for plaintiff in error.
W. T. Anglin, for defendants in error.
¶1 Jimmie Bighead was a Creek Indian of the one-half blood. His name appears on the approved rolls of the Creek Nation opposite No. 7521. Under the Original Creek and Supplemental Treaties there was duly allotted to him the southwest quarter of section 23, township 6 north, range 8 east, 160 acres of land in what was then the Creek Nation of the Indian Territory, now Hughes county, state of Oklahoma, the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of which was designated and allotted to him as his homestead. The proper allotment certificates and patents to said land were duly issued and delivered to him by the United States government and the Creek Nation under said treaties or agreements. Jimmie had a guardian duly appointed, qualified, and acting under authority of the county court of Hughes county, Okla., after the advent of statehood, and this guardian proceeded, amongst other things, to lease Jimmie''s entire allotment to Franklin Chaney for the term and period of four years from January 1, 1914, to December 31, 1917; said lease being in writing and dated August 30, 1913, and duly approved by the county judge of Hughes county, Okla., on August 30, 1913, but was never approved by the Secretary of the Interior. In the month of August, 1914, Bighead died, being at the time of his death unmarried, without issue, and intestate. He left surviving him, as his sole and only heir at law, Jennie Peter, a full-blood Creek Indian woman, duly enrolled. On September 24, 1914, Jennie Peter made, executed, and delivered to J. D. Boxley her warranty deed to this entire allotment which she had thus inherited from Jimmie Bighead; that J. D. Boxley caused the deed to be duly recorded in the office of the county clerk of Hughes county, Okla., on September 24, 1914, but said deed was never approved by the county court of Hughes county, Okla. On the 8th day of March, 1915, Jennie Peter made, executed, and delivered to E. M. Scott her warranty deed to the entire allotment inherited by her from the deceased, Jimmie Bighead, and the said Scott caused said deed to be duly approved by the county court of Hughes county, Okla., on March 8, 1915, and duly recorded in the office of the county clerk of Hughes county, Okla., on March 9, 1915. Scott sues Boxley and Chaney in the district court of Hughes county, Okla., on March 23, 1915, the prayer of his petition being as follows:
"Wherefore plaintiff prays that the defendants be required to set forth the nature of their claims to said premises, if any; that this court decree that plaintiff''s claim and title to said premises, to wit, the southwest quarter of section 23, township 6 north, range 8 east, is valid and perfect, and that the said defendants have no right, valid claim, or title therein, nor any interest whatsoever in said premises; that the title of plaintiff be quieted in said premises; that said defendants be perpetually barred and enjoined from setting up or asserting any title or interest in said premises adverse to the plaintiff, and for such other relief as may be equitable and proper, and for the cost of this action, and will ever pray."
¶2 With these facts before the trial court in the nature of an agreed statement of facts, the trial court rendered the following judgment or decree:
To continue reading
Request your trial