Bunch v. Cole, 33
Decision Date | 19 November 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 33,33 |
Parties | BUNCH v. COLE et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Dennis T. Flynn, Streeter B. Flynn, and Robert M. Rainey, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Benjamin Martin, Jr., of Muskogee, Okl., for defendants in error.
This was an action by an Indian allottee to recover for a wrongful occupancy and use of his land.
The plaintiff was an adult Cherokee Indian of the full blood, enrolled and recognized as a member of the tribe and still a ward of the United States. The land was an 80-acre tract which had been allotted to him in the division of the tribal lands—40 acres as a homestead and the remainder as surplus land. He had full title, but his power to alien or lease was subject to restrictions imposed by Congress for his protection. By three successive instruments, each given for a cash rental of $75, he leased the land, both homestead and surplus, to the defendants for agricultural purposes. The first lease was given late in 1915 for a term of one year, beginning January 1, 1916; the second was given early in July, 1916, for a term of one year, beginning January 1, 1917; and the third was given late in July, 1917, for a term of one year, beginning January 1, 1918. The defendants went into possession under the leases, and in 1917 and 1918 sublet the land to others. From the subletting the defendants realized $890.40 in 1917, and $384.35 in 1918, these sums representing the actual rental value on a crop-sharing basis in those years.
The action was begun in 1919, on the theory that the leases were made in violation of the restrictions imposed by Congress, and therefore were wholly void. At first a recovery was sought for all three years, but afterwards the claim for 1916 was dropped. On the trial the court treated the leases for 1917 and 1918 as void, but ruled that the plaintiff had waived the invalidity of the lease for 1917 by not promptly objecting to any occupancy or use under it, and so could not recover for that year. A recovery was had for 1918 of a sum conforming to what the defendants had realized from the subletting for that year, with interest. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of the state, and it reversed the judgment, with a direction that no recovery be allowed for either year. 85 Okl. 38, 204 Pac. 119. That court treated the leases for both years as void, but construed and applied a statute of the state as in effect requiring that the leases be regarded as creating a tenancy at will and controlling the amount which the plaintiff was entitled to demand and receive. This was done over his objection that the state statute, so construed and applied, was in conflict with the congressional restrictions, and therefore was invalid. The plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error. Upon his petition a writ of certiorari was granted (260 U. S. 716, 43 Sup. Ct. 94, 67 L. Ed. 478), but as it appears that the writ of error was well grounded the writ of certiorari will be dismissed.
The power of Congress to impose restrictions on the right of Indian wards of the United States to alien or lease lands allotted to them in the division of the lands of their tribe is beyond question, and of course it is not competent for a state to enact or give effect to a local statute which disregards those restrictions or thwarts their purpose. Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, 316, 31 Sup. Ct. 578, 55 L. Ed. 738; Monson v. Simonson, 231 U. S. 341, 347, 34 Sup. Ct. 71, 58 L. Ed. 260; Brader v. James, 246 U. S. 88, 96, 38 Sup. Ct. 285, 62 L. Ed. 591; Mullen v. Pickens, 250 U. S. 590, 595, 40 Sup. Ct. 31, 63 L. Ed. 1158.
An examination of the several enactments by which Congress has restricted the leasing of Cherokee allotments for agricultural purposes1 discloses that when the leases in question were given the situation was as follows:
(1) An adult allottee of the full blood could lease the homestead for not exceeding one year, and the surplus for not exceeding five years, without any approval of the lease, but could not lease for longer periods without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
(2) Any lease not permitted by the restrictions was to be 'absolutely null and void.'
The permission given to lease for limited periods without approval was not intended to authorize the making of leases which were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence
...Agreement was not approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the agreement is "absolutely null and void." See Bunch v. Cole , 263 U.S. 250, 253, 44 S.Ct. 101, 68 L.Ed. 290 (1923) (finding that agreements that require and do not receive approval by the Secretary of the Interior are null and ......
-
Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Cty. of Oneida
...contrary to the terms of Congressional enactment, the Supreme Court has not hesitated to void the transaction. In Bunch v. Cole, 263 U.S. 250, 44 S.Ct. 101, 68 L.Ed. 290 (1923), a Cherokee Indian leased his land in violation of Congressional restrictions. The Court held the lease void and f......
-
U.S. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co.
...on the precise issue before us, there are two analogous Supreme Court holdings which we deem controlling. In Bunch v. Cole, 263 U.S. 250, 44 S.Ct. 101, 68 L.Ed. 290 (1923), an allottee had leased his land for a term beginning at a too distant time in the future to be permissible under the a......
-
Ford v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
...301, 41 S. Ct. 137, 65 L Ed. 304; Ward & Gow v. Krinsky. 259 V. S. 503, 42 S. Ct, 529, 66 L. Ed. 1033, 28 A. L. R. 1207; Bunch v. Cole, 263 U. S. 250, 44 S. Ct. 101, 68 L. Ed. 290; Missouri, ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U. S. 40, 46 S. Ct. 384, 70 L. Ed. 818; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Risty......