Hancock v. Mut. Trust Co.
Decision Date | 13 July 1909 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 631 |
Citation | 24 Okla. 391,103 P. 566,1909 OK 170 |
Parties | HANCOCK et al v. MUTUAL TRUST CO. et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. INDIANS--Allotment--Conveyance by Heirs. Lands allotted (homestead and surplus) under the provisions of section 22, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, approved July 1, 1902, in the name of a deceased member of the Croctaw Tribe of Indians, are alienable by his heirs after lawful selection, prior to the lapse of one, three, or five years, and prior to the issuance of certificate or patent.
Thos. Norman and W. N. Redwine, for plaintiff in error, citing: Wallace v. Adams, 74 C. C. A. 540; Stevens v. Smith, 77 U.S. 321; Taylor v. Brown, 147 U.S. 641; Goodrum v. Buffalo, 162 F. 817.
W. D. Gibbs and Ledbetter & Bledsoe, for defendants in error, citing: Godfrey v. Iowa Land & Trust Co., 21 Okla. 293, 95 P. 792; McWilliams Inv. Co. v. Livingston, 22 Okla. 884, 98 P. 814; Western Inv. Co. v. Tiger, 21 Okla. 630, 96 P. 602; Indian Land & Trust Co. v. Fears, 22 Okla. 681, 98 P. 904; Statutes of Arkansas, secs. 2522, 2531, 2543; Barnett v. Bank, 98 U.S. 555; Shultis v. McDougal, 162 F. 332; Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1; Clark v. Lord, 20 Kan. 390; Farrington v. Wilson, 29 Wis. 383; Love v. Pamplin, 21 F. 755; Briggs v. McClain, 23 Kan. 1045.
Error from District Court, Carter County; S. H. Russell, Judge.
Action by Francis Hancock and Bertie Ebonowatubbee against the Mutual Trust Company and J. E. Hamilton. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
Thos. Norman and W. N. Redwine, for plaintiff in error
W. D. Gibbs and Ledbetter & Bledsoe, for defendants in error
¶1 October 1, 1905, Simon Ebonowatubbee, a full-blood Choctaw Indian, died. He was duly enrolled as a member of that tribe of Indians at the time of his death, and entitled to an allotment in accordance with the provisions relative thereto contained in what is commonly known as the "supplementary treaty," chapter 1362, 32 Stat. 641, approved July 1, 1902. At the time of his death he had not selected his allotment, and hence there had not been issued to him either a certificate or patent therefor. A few days after his death an administrator was appointed over his estate, who, in due course, selected, filed upon, and had allotted to the said deceased in his name, a tract of land as and for his allotment. He left surviving him Bertie Ebonowatubbee, his wife, and Francis Hancock, the plaintiffs in the court below, and also one John King, who inherited his property under the terms of section 22 of the treaty aforesaid. King promptly sold his interest in the land, and Bertie Ebonowatubbee and Francis Hancock, parties hereto, also in the latter part of October, 1905, made, executed, and delivered a deed to the land, but on the 22d day of November, 1906, filed their complaint in equity to have the same set aside, alleging, among other grounds, that the said land was not alienable by them at the time the deed was executed; there being at that time neither certificate nor patent issued for said allotment. To this part of the complaint the defendants filed a demurrer, which was on the 22d day of June, 1908, by the court sustained, holding:
"That the demurrer should be sustained as to all that part of plaintiff's amended complaint which alleges that the lands in controversy were inalienable at the time of the execution of the deed, which deed was executed before the issuance of the allotment certificate and patent to said lands, but subsequent to the selection of same as the allotment of Simon Ebonowatubbee."
¶2 Whereupon complainants, electing to stand upon the allegations of their complaint, and refusing to plead further in the cause, gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, which in due course was had, and the case is now before us on petition in error and case made.
¶3 Two questions are raised by counsel for plaintiff in error: First, did the lower court err in holding that the land allotted in the name of the deceased allottee of the Choctaw Nation was alienable by the heirs of such allottee after lawful selection but prior to the issuance of a certificate of allotment or of patent to the land? Second, did the lower court err in holding that the surplus land lawfully allotted a member of the Choctaw Nation was alienable immediately on the death of the allottee and before the expiration of one, three, and five years, and without reference to whether a certificate or patent had theretofore been issued?
¶4 These questions require consideration at our hands of the following sections of the treaty referred to:
¶5 It is the claim of plaintiffs under the foregoing sections that, prior to the issuance of either a certificate of allotment or of a patent, or both, the allottee has no title, and that, under the plain terms of the enactment, he is not permitted to alienate any of his lands prior to the date of the patent, and the argument is made that the limitation contained in the foregoing sections not only applies to the living members of the tribe, but that it is equally applicable to the heirs of the deceased members; that is, those whose names appeared upon the rolls and who died subsequent to the ratification of the agreement and before receiving their allotments. Section 22 of the same treaty provides as follows:
¶6 To our minds the sections of the treaty which touch upon the subject naturally fall into three divisions, to wit, the provisions included in the sections which we have first above noted, being sections from 11 to 16, inclusive, which particular sections relate to the living people who would personally participate in the disposition of the lands and properties of the tribes; and, second, those subdivisions embraced in the three sections 19, 20, and 21, which relate to criminal offenses carved out of violations of the different portions of the treaty, and which fix the...
To continue reading
Request your trial