Goodrum v. Buffalo

• Citation: 162 F. 817
• Decision Date: 23 July 1908
• Docket Number: 2,746.
• Parties: GOODRUM et al. v. BUFFALO.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

162 F. 817

GOODRUM et al. v. BUFFALO.

No. 2,746.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

July 23, 1908

Syllabus by the Court

Under Act Cong. March 2, 1895, c. 188 (28 Stat. 907), and patents issued thereunder, declaring the land inalienable for 25 years thereafter, held, that the disability to convey runs with the land, and disqualifies the heir, as well as the immediate allottee, to convey within the prescribed period.

The general government, exercising a tutelary supervision over such Indians, as wards of the nation, it is held, has the right to attach any condition or qualification it sees fit to grants of the reservation lands of the tribe in severalty. So, notwithstanding such grantees may be citizens of the United States, and notwithstanding the patent may run to the allottee and his heirs, the common-law rules respecting a limitation upon alienation, being inconsistent with the prior estate in fee granted, would not extend beyond the natural life of the immediate allottee, as also the doctrines of estoppel, have no application to the instance of said patent.

Notwithstanding the general rule that a judgment between parties sui juris where the court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties, is conclusive of every question of fact and law in contestation, and cannot be attacked in a collateral proceeding, a judgment rendered by the United States Court in the Indian Territory, under a stipulation between a Quapaw Indian and a white man, submitting, under the provisions of local law, for decision the question of the power of such Indian allottee, or his heir, to convey his or her allotment within the 25-year period of limitation under Act Cong. March 2, 1895, c. 188, 28 Stat. 907, adjudging the validity of such conveyance, held to be invalid, when interposed to defeat the action of ejectment by the Indian heir against the prevailing party in such proceeding, for the following reasons: (1) Because the stipulation of submission, in the affidavit thereto, omitted a material fact, which is jurisdictional in character; (2) because the stipulation and the judgment do not describe the land in suit; (3) because, as to the power of alienation of such land, the Indian allottee and his or her heir, within the limitation period of 25 years, was not a person sui juris, capable of assenting to such submission and (4) because the United States Court in the Indian Territory, being itself a creature of Congress, with limited jurisdiction, was not invested with jurisdiction to extend by mere decretal order a power of alienation over such lands denied by another act of Congress to such Indian.

This is an action of ejectment, instituted by the defendant in error Arthur Buffalo, a minor, by J. F. Robinson, his guardian, against the plaintiffs in error, for the recovery of certain lands in the Quapaw reservation in the Indian Territory. The title of the defendant in error was derived as follows: On September 26, 1896, a patent was issued by the United States to John Medicine, a Quapaw, as an allottee of the reservation lands of said tribe of Indians. Said John Medicine died in 1896, leaving as his sole surviving heirs a daughter by the name of Ollie and a son named James Medicine. Thereafter the said Ollie Medicine died intestate in 1901, leaving as her sole heir the defendant in error, Arthur Buffalo. In April, 1903, said James Medicine died, leaving the defendant in error as his sole heir. The answer of the defendants, while in effect admitting that Arthur Buffalo was such surviving heir at law, set up a deed of conveyance from said Ollie, made subsequent to the death of said patentee, John Medicine, to the plaintiff in error, C. D. Goodrum, under which he claims. The answer further pleaded that in October, 1899, there was submitted an agreed statement of facts, entered into between said Ollie and the plaintiff in error, C. D. Goodrum, to the United States Court at Vinita, Ind. T., which recited that said Ollie had sold to said Goodrum all her right, title, and interest to the land in question; that there was then a balance of $52.25 of the purchase money due and unpaid, and that because of the fact that by the patent to said John Medicine and the act of Congress under which it was issued the said lands were inalienable by the patentee for a period of 25 years there was a question of law as to whether the said Ollie was competent to sell or dispose of said property so inherited, and therefore it was submitted to said court to determine the validity of said sale to said Goodrum, and whether or not he should pay to said Ollie the balance of the purchase money; that under said submission said United States Court at Vinita adjudged that the sale so made by said Ollie to the plaintiff in error was valid, and directed that upon payment of the balance of said purchase money she should execute to the said Goodrum a deed to said land, which had accordingly been done. The answer then set up title to the interest of said James Medicine in said lands, acquired in the same manner and under a like judgment of the said United States Court at Wagoner, Ind. T., under a like submission on stipulation, and under a deed made by him in pursuance of the judgment therein. The judgment below was for the defendant in error, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the Indian Territory, to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted.

Dennis H. Wilson, Preston S. Davis, Luman F. Parker, Jr., and Orion L. Rider, for plaintiffs in error.

W. H. Kornegay and Cooter, Thompson & Thompson, for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN and HOOK, Circuit Judges, and PHILIPS, District Judge.

PHILIPS District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The questions presented for decision are of great public importance, and are such as to demand definite determination. The history of the relation of the United States government toward the reservation lands of the Indians, both as to their tribal and individual status and rights, shows that because of the limited qualification of the Indians to exercise the functions of self-government and to appreciate and preserve their individual property interests, so as to become self-supporting and cease to be a charge and burden to the national government, the Indians have ever been regarded and treated as the 'wards of the nation.' Throughout the dealings with them, both by treaties and legislative enactments, the general government has, from a sense of justice to the Indians, as well as from a conception of sound public policy, found it to be wise and obligatory to safeguard these dependent subjects in their property rights against the mastery and craft of the white man. So long as their reservations remained communistic, the property of the tribe, as such, was not jeopardized by attempted acquisition by outsiders; but when their tribal relations were disrupted, at the solicitation of the government commissioners, and it was proposed to allot the lands in severalty among those entitled thereto, Congress was confronted with a grave responsibility and duty it could not in honor shirk.

The problem was experimental. The underlying policy in this rearrangement of treaty stipulations with the Indians was to stimulate in them a spirit of self-assertion and reliance, by inculcating the habit of industry and self-support. Feeling a strong misgiving as to their capacity and inclination to hold their allotments, to establish and maintain the family home, to soon conquer their inherent indolence and wastefulness, and apprehensive of their lack of virtue and moral courage to withstand temptation to part with their inheritance for 'a mess of pottage,' the whole legislation of Congress touching the allotment of Indian lands expresses on its face this feeling of distrust and a determined policy to put the allottees on probation during this experimental period. Accordingly, while authorizing the allotments in severalty, Congress conceded the lands, with a firm cable attached to hold them to the exclusive use and possession of the Indians, without qualification restricting the power to divest themselves of the use and title until after the fixed period.

The usual pertinent provision found in the acts of Congress was to retain the title in the government in trust for the allottees for a period of 25 years, after which the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to issue to them or their heirs a patent in fee to the lands. See Act Feb. 8, 1887, c. 119, 24 Stat. 388. In the case of the Quapaw Indians, who manifested reluctance to disrupt their tribal relations and to relinquish their reservation to the government, with a view to allotment in severalty, the National Council assented to the proposal March 23, 1893, which was ratified and approved by Act Cong. March 2, 1895, c. 188, 28 Stat. 907, which provides that:

'The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to issue patents to said allottees in accordance therewith: provided, that said allotments shall be inalienable for a period of twenty-five years from and after the date of said patents.'

This was in accordance with the settled policy of the government of continuing these wards of the nation in a state of comparative tutelage for the further period of 25 years after such allotment as essential to their education and qualification to intelligently and safely exercise the jus disponendi over their lands, with the exception that under the supervision and approval of the Secretary of the Interior short-term leases might be made. As evidence of the fact of the continued wardship of the Quapaw Indians and their dependence upon the national government for guardianship and tutelage, Congress each year makes appropriations out of the public treasury for their...