Grayson v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 12 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | 9522. |
| Citation | 186 P. 236,77 Okla. 77,1919 OK 326 |
| Parties | GRAYSON et al. v. THOMPSON. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1920.
Syllabus by the Court.
Act Cong. May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. 312, c. 199), entitled "An act for the removal of restrictions from part of the lands of allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes," is a revising act, and is intended as a substitute for all former acts relating to the subject of such restrictions, and operated to repeal the provisions of Act Cong. April 26, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 137, c. 1876), and previous congressional enactments in conflict therewith on the same subject.
It is a cardinal rule in the construction of statutes that the intention of the Legislature, when ascertained, must govern and that to ascertain the intent all the various provisions of legislative enactments upon the particular subject should be construed together and given effect as a whole.
When the language of a statute is dubious the court, in construing it, will consider the reason and intent of the law, to discover its scope and true meaning.
Subsequent congressional legislation may be considered as an aid to the interpretation of prior legislation upon the same subject.
The provisions of section 16 of the Supplemental Creek Agreement (Act Cong. June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 500, c. 1323) construed and held to impose restrictions against alienation and limitations on the descent of homesteads allotted to Creek Indians in their own right, who left children born to them after May 25, 1901.
Said provision was repealed and superseded by section 9, Act Cong. May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. 315, c. 199), and a deed, executed August 3, 1908, by a one-quarter blood Creek Indian, to his homestead allotment conveyed fee-simple title to the grantee in said deed.
Error from District Court, Okmulgee County; Ernest B. Hughes Judge.
Action by Vanhoy Grayson and Trana V. Grayson, minors, who sue by their next friend, John Schanks, and Pansy May Grayson, a minor, who sues by her guardian, Frank Nash, against William Thompson. Demurrer to petition sustained, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
James M. Hays, of Okmulgee, for plaintiffs in error.
Geo. T Brown and Robert R. Burns, both of Tulsa, and C. W. Holbrook, of Okmulgee, for defendant in error.
This case involves the title to the allotment of one Joe Grayson, a duly enrolled citizen of the Creek Nation of one-fourth Indian blood, who died on the 16th day of November, 1908. On the 3d day of August of that year Grayson sold the 40 acres allotted to him as a homestead to Bernard B. Jones, and executed and delivered to Mr. Jones a warranty deed thereto. The defendant in error, William Thompson, claims title through Mr. Jones. This action was instituted by Vanhoy Grayson and Trana V. Grayson, minors, who sue by their next friend, John Schanks, and Pansy May Grayson, a minor, who sues by her guardian, Frank Nash, to recover possession of said land from Mr. Thompson, and for damages for withholding the same.
The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's petition, and the only question presented in this court is whether the petition stated a cause of action.
Section 1 of the act of Congress approved May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. 312, c. 199), entitled "An act for the removal of restrictions from part of the lands of allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes," operated to remove all restrictions from all lands, including homesteads, of said allottees enrolled as intermarried whites, as freedmen, and as mixed-blood Indians having less than half Indian blood, and it is claimed by defendant that the deed executed by Joe Grayson on August 3, 1908, divested said allottee of all the right, title, or interest he had in the land described therein, and that the title so conveyed was a fee-simple title. Plaintiffs concede that the deed executed by Grayson to Jones divested said allottee of all his right, title, and interest in said land, but contend that the only estate he had in his homestead allotment thus attempted to be conveyed was a life estate, and that such was all the estate that passed by virtue of said deed. This contention is based upon the provisions of section 16 of the Supplemental Creek Agreement (Act Cong. June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 503, c. 1323) which is as follows:
"The homestead of each citizen shall remain, after the death of the allottee, for the use and support of children born to him after May 25, 1901, but if he have no such issue then he may dispose of his homestead by will, free from the limitation herein imposed, and if this be not done the land embraced in his homestead shall descend to his heirs, free from such limitation, according to the laws of descent herein otherwise prescribed."
The patent conveying the homestead to Grayson and the provisions of the act of Congress pursuant to which it was issued must be construed together. Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 32 S.Ct. 565, 56 L.Ed. 941. Moreover, the patent did, in fact, provide that it was subject to the provisions of the Supplemental Agreement. In construing the above statute we must ascertain, if possible, the purpose Congress sought to accomplish by its enactment, and when such intent is established it must govern. As an aid to ascertaining such intent the various provisions of congressional enactments upon the same subject should be considered together and given effect as a whole. Subsequent legislative enactments may also be considered in arriving at the true scope and meaning of the provision. Board of Com'rs of Creek Co. v. Alexander, 58 Okl. 128, 159 P. 311; Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U.S. 309, 31 S.Ct. 578, 55 L.Ed. 738.
In addition to section 16, supra, of the Supplemental Creek Agreement there are two congressional enactments dealing with the status of Creek homesteads after the death of the allottee. These are section 7 of the Original Creek Agreement (Act Cong. March 1, 1901, c. 676, 31 Stat. 864), and section 9, Act Cong. May 27, 1908, supra, and are as follows respectively:
To continue reading
Request your trial