Eli Williams v. Ben Johnson

Decision Date20 December 1915
Docket NumberNo. 110,110
PartiesELI P. WILLIAMS, Elmer Williams, and Charles H. Williams, Plffs. in Err., v. BEN F. JOHNSON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Eli P. Williams, Elmer Williams, and Charles H. Williams, in propriis personis, for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Reford Bond, Alger Melton, and Adrian Melton for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 415 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

Suit to quiet title, brought by Johnson, defendant in error, in the district court of Grady county, state of Oklahoma, against plaintiffs in error.

The contention of defendant in error is that the land was an allotment to one Selin Taylor, a member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by blood; that on November 22, 1904, a patent was duly issued to him, executed by the proper officers of that Nation and the Chickasaw Nation, and the United States, and that at the time of the allotment the land was inalienable.

On February 9, 1906, the United States Indian agent issued to Taylor a certificate (No. 2458) removing Taylor's disabilities respecting the alienation of the land, and on February 16th Taylor conveyed the land by warranty deed to C. B. Campbell, and the latter and his wife, on March 13th following, conveyed the land by like deed to Johnson. The deeds were duly recorded.

On November 15, 1906, Taylor and his wife conveyed the land by warranty deed to James E. Whitehead, and on October 22, 1909, Whitehead conveyed the land to one McNeill, who, on the 25th of that month, conveyed to Johnson.

Johnson's petition alleged that the claim of title of the defendants (plaintiffs in error here) was based upon a power of attorney covering the land, executed by Taylor on March 11, 1907, and charged that the power of attorney constituted a cloud upon his (Johnson's) title.

The answer of the defendants admitted the allotment to Taylor and the execution of the various instruments of conveyance from him and his grantees to Johnson, and alleged that Taylor received his allotment under an act of Congress of July 1, 1902, known as an 'Act to Ratify and Confirm an Agreement with the Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes of Indians, and for Other Purposes' [32 Stat. at L. 641, chap. 1362], and that the act was called an 'agreement' and was ratified by Congress and the voters of those tribes, and was a binding contract upon the United States and the Indians of those tribes, and particularly Taylor. That Taylor is not a ward of the United States and was not at the time the land was allotted, and that by an act of Congress of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 1447, chap. 869). Taylor was made a citizen of the United States, with the rights, privileges, and immunities of such.

That the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, and not the United States, are the grantors in the patent to Taylor, and imposed restrictions upon him against the alienation of the land, and have not consented to the removal of those restrictions. That the deeds executed by Taylor under which Johnson claimed title were in violation of such restrictions and therefore void. That the patent to Taylor was issued by authority of § 29 of the act of Congress of June 28, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 495, chap. 517), and contained the following clause: 'Subject, however, to the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1st, 1902 (32 Stat. at L. 641, chap. 1362).'

That Taylor and the defendants claim title to the land under that agreement and patent; that the restrictions imposed upon the alienation of the land were for the protection and benefit of the members of the tribes; that Taylor was a full-blood Choctaw Indian and a member of the Choctaw tribe, did not understand the English language, was wholly ignorant of land values, was in need of and entitled to the protection and benefit of the restrictions so imposed; and that such 'protection was of great value and was to him property as much as the land itself.'

That the deeds executed by Taylor to Campbell and Whitehead were in open violation of the restrictions against alienation in the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, supra, under which Taylor was allotted the land, and also in violation of the restrictions upon alienation contained in the patent from the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations to him, and were executed under an unconstitutional act of Congress approved April 21, 1904 (33 Stat. at L. 204, chap. 1402). That the object of that act of Congress and of the certificate to Taylor was to remove the restrictions upon the alienation of the land, and that they impair the obligation of the contract or binding agreement 'upon the United States and upon the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations and upon all Choctaws and Chickasaws,' and especially Selin Taylor, and are repugnant to the act of Congress under which Taylor was allotted the land, and also to the Constitution of the United States and the clause in the 5th Amendment thereof which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. A cancelation of the deeds was prayed, the annulment of the interest of Johnson in the land and the rents thereof, and judgment for the possession of the land.

A demurrer to the answer was sustained, and defendants (plaintiffs in error) declining to plead further, a decree was entered quieting Johnson's title to the land. Upon appeal the judgment was sustained...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Bordeaux v. Hunt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • November 14, 1985
    ...grant. 224 U.S. at 673, 32 S.Ct. at 568. Several years later, the issue was again placed before the Court in Williams v. Johnson, 239 U.S. 414, 36 S.Ct. 150, 60 L.Ed. 358 (1915). There, it was argued "that the restriction upon alienation was a protection to the allottee `against his own imp......
  • Highrock v. Gavin
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1920
    ...governmental purposes, relating to the guardianship and protection of the Indians, is not open to controversy.” In Williams v. Johnson, 239 U. S. 414, 36 Sup. Ct. 150, 60 L. Ed. 358, the court said: “It has often been decided that the Indians are wards of the nation and that Congress has pl......
  • Arenas v. United States, 1321 O'C. Civil.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • April 25, 1945
    ...349, 65 L.Ed. 684. See also United States v. Waller, 1917, 243 U.S. 452, 459; 37 S.Ct. 430, 61 L.Ed. 843; Williams v. Johnson, 1915, 239 U.S. 414, 421, 36 S.Ct. 150, 60 L.Ed. 358. See United States v. Nice, 1916, 241 U. S. 591, 36 S.Ct. 696, 60 L.Ed. 1192, where it was also said: "Citizensh......
  • Porter v. Hall
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1928
    ... 271 P. 411 34 Ariz. 308 PETER H. PORTER and RUDOLPH JOHNSON Plaintiffs, v. MATTIE M. HALL, Individually and as County Recorder of the County of Pinal, State of Arizona, Defendant Civil No. 2793 Supreme ... and protection due from a guardian to his ward. La ... Motte v. United States, 254 U.S. 570, 65 L.Ed ... 410, 41 S.Ct. 204; Williams v. Johnson, 239 ... U.S. 414, 60 L.Ed. 358, 36 S.Ct. 150; United States ... v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 30 L.Ed. 228, 6 S.Ct. 1109; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT