Garrett v. Walcott

• Citation: 106 P. 848,25 Okla. 574,1910 OK 42
• Decision Date: 12 January 1910
• Docket Number: Case Number: 785
• Parties: GARRETT et al. v. WALCOTT et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

1910 OK 42

106 P. 848

25 Okla. 574

GARRETT et al. v. WALCOTT et al.

Case Number: 785

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: January 12, 1910

Syllabus

¶0 1. INDIANS -- Allotment of Land -- Equity Jurisdiction of State Courts. Courts of equity have jurisdiction, after the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes and the Secretary of the Interior have exercised their power and exhausted their jurisdiction, to determine whether by error of law, or through fraud or gross mistake, the Commission and the Secretary have failed to allot land in the Creek Nation to the citizen who, under the law and treaties, was entitled to same, and have assigned it to one who had an inferior right thereto. If the Commission and the Secretary have been induced to cause to be issued a patent to the wrong party by an erroneous view of the law, or by a gross or fraudulent mistake of the facts, the rightful claimant may cause such decision to be avoided, and charge the legal title to the lands in the hands of the allottee with his equitable right to it upon the ground that, upon the facts found, conceded, or established without dispute at the hearing before this special tribunal, its officers fell into error as to the law applicable to the case, which caused them to refuse to have issued the patent to him and give it to another, or through fraud or gross mistake it fell into a misapprehension of the facts proved before it, which had a like effect.

2. SAME--Laches. The citizen being entitled by virtue of his improvements to take such land as his allotment or that of his minor children, although having failed with knowledge of the facts to exhaust all legal remedies appellate, afforded him before the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes and the Secretary of the Interior, having acted in good faith and there having been no unreasonable delay in invoking the powers of equity for redress, otherwise being entitled to relief, the same will be afforded him.

Appeal from the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory; W. R. Lawrence, Judge.

Action by Alfred Garrett and others against Lula Walcott and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed for new trial.

This action was instituted by Alfred T. Garrett, Cyril C. Garrett, and Edna M. Garrett, minors, by their father and next friend, Charles W. Garrett, the appellants, as plaintiffs, in the lower court against the appellees, Lulu Walcott and J. Blair Shoenfelt, United States Indian Agent, as defendants, alleging that all the parties thereto, except the Indian agent, are members of the Creek Tribe of Indians, duly enrolled and recognized as such; that the defendant J. Blair Shoenfelt was the United States Indian agent for the Union Agency, located at Muskogee, Ind. T.; that the plaintiffs are the owners of the improvements located on a certain tract of land in the Creek Nation near Muskogee; that the father of the plaintiffs, who was a member of the Creek Tribe of Indians, had been in possession of said land prior to the opening of the Creek land office at Muskogee on April 1, A. D. 1899, and had expended thereon large sums of money in purchasing and improving said land and the right of possession thereof; that neither of said plaintiffs nor their father have at any time held land in the Creek Nation in excess of their proportionate share of the lands of said nation as citizens thereof; that on April 1, A. D. 1899, when the said Creek land office was opened at Muskogee, the father of said plaintiffs made application to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes to file on the land held by him for himself and his minor children, but that he was requested by the clerk in charge of said land office to defer his filing until a later date, in order that these citizens of the Creek Nation who lived at a greater distance from Muskogee than he did might file and return to their homes, and that he acceded to said request, but that on the 4th day of April, A. D. 1899, the said Commission permitted the defendant Lulu Walcott, who at that time resided in the city of Muskogee, to file on all of said land as her allotment, at which time in support of her application to file on said land said defendant Lulu Walcott falsely and fraudulently stated to said Commission that she was the only citizen of the Creek Nation who owned any improvements on said land, and that said Commission then and there permitted said Lulu Walcott to select said land for her allotment, and issued to her a certificate showing such selection; that several months elapsed thereafter before the father of said plaintiffs learned that said land had been filed on by said defendant, and that, soon after receiving information of such fling, he on December 23, A. D. 1899, made application to have said land allotted to said plaintiffs Alfred T. Garrett and Cyril C. Garrett, they being at that time entitled to take all of said land as a part of their allotments, but that said application was denied by the Commission; that plaintiffs' father on May 21, 1900, filed with said Commission a petition asking leave to institute a contest on said filing of the defendant Lulu Walcott, in support of which he stated under oath to said Commission all of the facts herein alleged relative to his having held possession of said land for the allotments of his minor children; that thereupon said Commission fraudulently and in violation of law and of the rules of practice providing for the government of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes in the matter of selecting allotments by Creek citizens, dismissed said petition, and denied permission for plaintiffs' father to institute said contest for them; that thereafter, the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes and the Department of the Interior having decided that said Commission had been in error in holding that contests upon land rightfully in the possession of citizens had to be instituted within 90 days from the date the land was filed on by other citizens, and said decision having been brought to the attention of the father of plaintiffs, he on April 26, A. D. 1902, filed with said Commission a complaint in contest against the said filing of the defendant Lulu Walcott, but that said Commission refused to entertain said contest and dismissed the same without issuing summons thereon or permitting the father of plaintiffs to be heard in support of said complaint; that thereafter said Commission certified to the principal chief of the Creek Nation that said defendant Lulu Walcott was entitled to a deed to the land referred to, and that said principal chief issued a deed to said Lulu Walcott therefor, which said deed has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior and delivered to the defendant Lulu Walcott in fraud of the rights of the said plaintiffs; that said Lulu Walcott never placed any improvements on said land, and never had any right of possession thereof, and was not entitled to allot same, nor to a deed thereto, and that the issuance of said deed to her was in violation of law and a fraud upon the rights of said plaintiffs; that at various times after she filed on said land and after said filing became known to the father of plaintiffs, said Lulu Walcott stated to said father of said plaintiffs that her filing on said land had been inadvertently made and by mistake, and that she had not intended to file on any land in the possession of the father of said plaintiffs; that at various times said defendant Lulu Walcott offered to surrender said land, and asked to have her filing on same canceled by some Commission, and thus misled plaintiffs, in that they could not get other lands which they could have obtained at that time to file on; that subsequent to the time said defendant filed on said land the father of said plaintiffs selected certain small tracts of land in other locations for a part of the allotments of said plaintiffs Alfred Garrett and Cyril C. Garrett, but that said plaintiff Alfred Garrett is now entitled to file on 70 acres of land, and said plaintiff Cyril C. Garrett is entitled to file on 27 1/2 acres of land to complete their allotments, to which they are entitled under the law governing the allotment of the lands of the Creek Nation, and that the plaintiff Edna M. Garrett, is entitled to select 40 acres of land to complete her allotment of the lands of said nation; that the plaintiffs' father, Charles W. Garrett, is entitled to file on 5 acres of land to complete his allotment, and plaintiffs' sister, Letta Garrett, is entitled to 15 acres to complete her allotment; that the father of said plaintiffs has five children, all of whom are citizens of the Creek Nation and all minors, and that he has already filed on all of the land in the Creek Nation in his possession for himself and his children, except said tract of land in controversy herein, and that only one member of said family, to wit, William H. Garrett, has received his full allotment; that there is no other land in the possession of the father of said plaintiffs on which he can select the remainder of his own or his said children's allotments; that, owing to the fact that said defendant Lulu Walcott fraudulently misled plaintiffs' father by her repeated promise to release her filing on said land, it is now impossible for said plaintiffs to receive allotments of land at any place near their homes, and all of the desirable land of the Creek Nation which could have been selected by said plaintiffs has been taken by other citizens of said nation; that the United States Indian agent, J. Blair Shoenfelt, one of the defendants, is about to remove plaintiffs and their father from said land and turn over the possession thereof to the defendant Lulu Walcott, and deprive said plaintiffs and their father of said improvements; that, if the possession of said land should be delivered to the defendant Lulu Walcott, neither these plaintiffs nor their said father would have recourse whatever...