Daid v. Territory of Oklahoma Smith
Decision Date | 20 November 1893 |
Docket Number | No. 785,785 |
Citation | 150 U.S. 209,14 S.Ct. 59,37 L.Ed. 1055 |
Parties | McDAID et al. v. TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. SMITH et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Statement by Mr. Chief Justice FULLER:
This was a proceeding in mandamus brought in the district court of the first judicial district of Logan county, in the territory of Oklahoma, April 27, 1891, to compel Daniel J McDaid, William H. Merriweather, and John H. Shanklin, as trustees of the town site of Guthrie, Oklahoma territory, appointed by the secretary of the interior under the act of May 14, 1890, (26 Stat. 109, c. 207,) entitled 'An act to provide for town-site entries of lands in what is known as 'Oklahoma,' and for other purposes,' to execute deeds for certain lots in said town site. The relators, Smith and Bradley, claimed to have entered two lots on the site, and one John Galloway claimed a prior right thereto.
On September 23, 1890, the relators applied to the town-site trustees for a deed to the lots, and on the same day Galloway also made his application therefor. The trustees heard the controversy of the two claimants, and on April 6, 1891, rendered their decision in favor of the relators, finding that they were entitled to the lots in dispute, and to a conveyance from the trustees, and they ordered that a deed be executed accordingly. Galloway having died, his heirs were substituted for him, and they filed their appeal from the decision of the commissioner of the general land office. In consequence of the appeal the trustees refused to issue the deed, and thereupon the relators instituted this suit.
The complaint alleged that the sole ground of tefusal was the appeal; that there was no authority for such appeal, and that it furnished no excuse to the trustees for their refusal. The defendant's answered, setting up that Galloway's heirs 'duly filed their appeal from the decision of this board to the commissioner of the general land office, pursuant to the instructions under act of congress under which this board was appointed, such instructions having been made by the secretary of the interior authorizing appeals by claimants to lots in cases where such claimants feel themselves aggrieved by the decisions of this board.
'And these defendants, further answering, say that there is a right of appeal given by the instructions of the secretary of the interior and recognized by this board, and that appeals in similar cases have been taken by other persons from other decisions of this board both before and after the appeal taken in this case.
'And these defendants say that they were appointed by the secretary of the interior, and that at the time of their appointment they were directed to allow appeals from their decisions where such appeals were properly prayed, and that the appeal in this case was properly prayed, and under such instructions was granted.
'And these defendants further say that the question of legal ownership as to said lot has not been definitely settled by the higher tribunals of the interior department, and that no deeds have passed for such lots, and should not pass until such appeal is disposed of; and that under such circumstances it is not for this court, by mandate or otherwise, to direct in what manner or to whom conveyances of lands or lots the title to which is in the United States should be made to individuals.'
Relators demurred to the answer, and their demurrer was sustained. Defendants then moved to dismiss the cause upon the ground that the territorial court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter. This motion was overruled, and thereupon judgment was entered ordering the trustees to execute and deliver a deed to the relators of the lots in question. An appeal was thereupon prosecuted to the supreme court of the territory, by which the judgment was affirmed, July 6, 1892. The opinion of the court and of Clark, J., dissenting, will be found in 1 Okl. 92, 30 Pac. Rep. 438. The cause was then brought to this court by writ of error.
The act of congress of May 14, 1890, omitting the eighth section, is as follows:
'Be it enacted,' etc., 'that so much of the public lands situate in the territory of Oklahoma, now open to settlement, as may be necessary to embrace all the legal subdivisions covered by actual occupancy for purposes of trade and business, not exceeding twelve hundred and eighty acres in each case, may be entered as town sites, for the several use and benefit of the occupants thereof, by three trustees to be appointed by the secretary of the interior for that purpose, such entry to be made under the provisions of section twenty-three hundred and eighty-seven of the Revised Statutes as near as may be and when such entry shall have been made, the secretary of the interior shall provide regulations for the proper execution of the trust, by such trustees, including the survey of the land into streets, alleys, squares, blocks, and lots when necessary, or the approval of such survey as may already have been made by the inhabitants thereof, the assessment upon the lots of such sum as may be necessary to pay for the lands embraced in such town site, costs of survey, conveyance of lots, and other necessary expenses, including compensation of trustees: provided, that the secretary of the interior may when practicable cause more than one town site to be entered and the trust thereby created executed in the manner herein provided by a single board of trustees, but not more than seven boards of trustees in all shall be appointed for said territory, and no more than two members of any of said boards shall be appointed from one political party.
'Sec. 2. That in the execution of such trust, and for the purpose of the conveyance of title by said trustees, any certificate or other paper evidence of claim duly issued by the authority recognized for such purpose by the people residing upon any town site the subject of entry hereunder, shall be taken as evidence of the occupancy by the holder thereof of the lot or lots therein described, except that where there is an adverse claim to said property such certficate shall only be prima facie evidence of the claim of occupancy of the holder: provided, that nothing in this act contained shall be so construed as to make valid any claim now invalid of those who entered upon and occupied said lands in violation of the laws of the United States or the proclamation of the president thereunder: provided, further, that the certificates hereinbefore mentioned shall not be taken as evidence in favor of any person claiming lots who entered upon said lots in violation of law or the proclamation of the president thereunder.
'Sec. 3. That lots of land occupied by any religious organization, incorporated or otherwise, conforming to the approved survey within the limits of such town site, shall be conveyed to or in trust for the same.
'Sec. 4. That all lots not disposed of as hereinbefore pro- vided for shall be sold, under the direction of the secretary of the interior, for the benefit of the municipal government of any such town, or the same or any part thereof may be reserved for public use as sites for public buildings, or for the purpose of parks, if in the judgment of the secretary such reservation would be for the public interest, and the secretary shall execute proper conveyances to carry out the provisions of this section.
'Sec. 5. That the provisions of sections four, five, six and seven, of an act of the legislature of the state of Kansas, entitled 'An act relating to town sites,' approved March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, shall, so far as applicable, govern the trustees in the performance of their duties hereunder.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stimson Land Co. v. Rawson
...48, 6 Sup.Ct. 249; Williams v. U.S., 138 U.S. 514, 11 Sup.Ct. 457; Knight v. Association, 142 U.S. 161, 12 Sup.Ct. 258; McDaid v. Territory, 150 U.S. 209, 14 Sup.Ct. 59; Barden v. Railroad Co., 14 Sup.Ct. 1030. In exercise of his power to supervise proceedings for securing titles to public ......
-
Brooks v. Garner
...judicial determination that Price, the grantee of Word, was entitled to the deed. ¶2 Notwithstanding the case of McDade v. Territory, 150 U.S. 209, 14 S. Ct. 59, 37 L. Ed. 1055, in which it is held that: "The Secretary of the Interior has power to provide for an appeal from the decision of ......
-
Finley v. Oklahoma ex rel. Keys
...judge. This principle has been clearly enunciated by the supreme court of the United States in the case of McDaid v. Territory of Oklahoma, 150 U.S. 209, 37 L. Ed. 1055, 14 S. Ct. 59. In this case the question arose as to whether or not a person had the right to appeal in cases involving lo......
-
Brooks v. Garner
...the case finally got before the department on the question of the costs before the board. The department held, after citing McDade v. Territory of Oklahoma, supra: "It will thus seen that the decision of the town site board in contested lot cases is not a finality; but, in the case under co......