Henrietta First Moon v. Starling White Tail
| Decision Date | 01 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 191,191 |
| Citation | 46 S.Ct. 246,270 U.S. 243,70 L.Ed. 565 |
| Parties | HENRIETTA FIRST MOON v. STARLING WHITE TAIL et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Prettyman, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Harry L. Underwood, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Appellant seeks to establish an interest in certain lands allotted to Little Soldier, a Ponca Indian, under the General Allotment Act of 1887, c. 119, 24 Stat. 388, as amended by the Act of 1891, c. 383, 26 Stat. 794. Trust patents were issued therefor in 1895, and he died March 1, 1919. It appears from the bill that the Secretary of the Interior after due consideration determined who were the heirs and in doing so eliminated appellant, although she claimed to be the only surviving lawful wife. It is alleged that upon the facts found by him the Secretary misapplied the law
The court below held, correctly we think, that it was without jurisdiction since the matter had been intrusted to the exclusive cognizance of the Secretary of the Interior by the Act of June 25, 1910, c. 431, § 1, 36 Stat. 855 (Comp. St. § 4226), which provides:
'That when any Indian to whom an allotment of land has been made, or may hereafter be made, dies before the expiration of the trust period and before the issuance of a fee simple patent, without having made a will disposing of said allotment as hereinafter provided, the Secretary of the Interior, upon notice and hearing, under such rules as he may prescribe, shall ascertain the legal heirs of such decedent, and his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive.'
The question presented must be regarded as settled by what this court has said in Hallowell v. Commons, 36 S. Ct. 202, 239 U. S. 506, 60 L. Ed. 409; Lane v. Mickadiet, 36 S. Ct. 599, 241 U. S. 201, 60 L. Ed. 956; United States v. Bowling, 41 S. Ct. 561, 256 U. S. 484, 65 L. Ed. 1054. The legislative history of the Act of 1910-Cong. Rec. vol. 45, p. 5811-lends support to this construction; and abundant reason for the provision becomes apparent upon consideration of the infinite difficulties which otherwise would arise in connection with the sundry duties of the Secretary of the Interior relative to Indian allotments.
We cannot accept the suggestion that the above-quoted exclusive feature of the Act of 1910, was repealed by the Act of December 21, 1911, c. 5, 37 Stat. 46, which amended section 24,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arenas v. United States
...203, 60 L.Ed. 409. See, United States v. Bowling, 1921, 256 U.S. 484, 41 S.Ct. 561, 65 L.Ed. 1054; First Moon v. White Tail and United States, 1926, 270 U.S. 243, 46 S.Ct. 246, 70 L.Ed. 565; Caesar v. Krow, 1918, 71 Okl. 233, 176 P. 927, 930; Redeagle v. Channing, 1930, 146 Okl. 288, 294 P.......
-
Eskra v. Morton
...It does not govern "disputes concerning the heirs of one who held a valid and unquestioned allotment." First Moon v. White Tail, 270 U.S. 243, 245, 46 S.Ct. 246, 70 L.Ed. 565 (1926). Thus, it does not provide jurisdiction in the present Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is an extraordinary re......
-
Nichols v. Rysavy, 593
...claims to have been unlawfully denied an allotment in the first instance does section 345 apply. Appellees cite First Moon v. White Tail, 270 U.S. 243, 245, 46 S.Ct. 246, 70 L.Ed.2d 575 (1926) for the proposition that section 345 did not Page 1325 confer jurisdiction over "disputes concerni......
-
Tooahnippah Goombi v. Hickel
...Secretary's decisions ascertaining the legal heirs of deceased Indians are 'final and conclusive.' Cf. First Moon v. White Tail, 270 U.S. 243, 244, 46 S.Ct. 246, 70 L.Ed. 565 (1926). The respondents contend that §§ 1 and 2 of the 1910 Act must be read in pari materia because both deal with ......