Leak v. Joslin
| Decision Date | 01 February 1908 |
| Citation | 94 P. 518,20 Okla. 200,1908 OK 20 |
| Parties | LEAK et al. v. JOSLIN. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
When town-site commissioners, by virtue of an act of Congress otherwise known as the "Supplemental Creek Agreement" (March 1, 1901, c. 676, 31 Stat. 861), where there is no conflict as to the facts, but by a misconstruction of the law as applied to the facts, schedule a lot to a party who is not entitled to same under the law after title has passed to a private party, courts of equity will inquire as to whether or not such title shall be held as trustee for the party really entitled to same.
Error from United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory, at Wagoner; before Justice Louis Sulzbacher.
Action by Winnie Joslin against Amanda Leak and John Leak. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed.
This action was instituted in the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory at Wagoner on the 14th day of October, A. D. 1904, and summons issued thereon being a statutory action in the nature of ejectment. In that court Winnie Joslin was plaintiff, and Amanda Leak and John Leak defendants, and hereafter reference will be made to them as they appeared in the court below.
Plaintiff alleged that on the 8th day of March, 1904, she was seised and possessed of lot 3 in block 465 in the city of Wagoner Ind. T.; the same having been conveyed to her on said date in fee by a deed made and executed and delivered to her by P Porter, principal chief of the Muskogee Nation, which deed was approved on the 17th day of June, 1904, by Eathan Allen Hitchcock, Secretary of the Interior. A copy of said deed is attached and referred to as Exhibit A. Said deed is in regular form, reciting: "Whereas, a town-site commission heretofore appointed and acting under authority of the act of Congress approved March 1, 1901, and ratified by the Creek Nation May 25, 1901, has appraised the lots in the town of Wagoner in said nation; and, whereas, the plat of said town had been approved on the 10th day of October, 1900, by the Secretary of the Interior, and was duly placed on file; and whereas, said commission had appraised all of the lots in said Wagoner at their true value, which appraisal had been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; and whereas, the said commission had awarded the real estate described herein to Winnie Mackey, who had paid twenty dollars, the full amount of the purchase price, into the treasury of the United States, to the credit of the Muskogee or Creek Tribe of Indians." Then, through the granting clause, which states under and by virtue of the power and authority vested in him by the said act of Congress of the United States that he thereby, as principal chief of the Muskogee Nation grants, sells, and conveys to the said Winnie Mackey, her heirs and assigns, forever, all the right, title, and interest in and to lot 3 block 465 in the town of Wagoner, Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Ind. T., and according to the plat thereof on file, as aforesaid. Then follows the signature, as aforesaid, under date of March 9, 1904, which is in due form. It appears that Winnie Mackey afterward married a man by the name of Joslin, and at the time this action was instituted her name was Winnie Joslin.
Afterwards, on the 20th day of December, 1904, the defendants filed their amended answer and cross-complaint wherein they admitted that the plaintiff had the deed hereinbefore referred to, which had been executed and delivered to plaintiff by the principal chief of the Creek Nation, and which had been approved June 17, 1904, covering said lot 3 in block 465 in the town of Wagoner. But defendants further alleged that they were in peaceable possession of said lot, occupying and using the same. They deny that they unlawfully retained the same, and that they ejected plaintiff from said premises, and denied that they were in possession of any of said lot except the strip on the north side thereof, described as follows, to wit: Beginning at the northeast corner of said lot 3, running diagonally across said lot 3 to a point on the west side of said lot 56 feet south of the northwest corner of said lot; thence north 56 feet to said northwest corner of said lot; thence east along said line between said lots 2 and 3 to the place of beginning. They further allege that on the 25th day of March, 1897, the defendant Amanda Leak purchased the Indian possessory right to said lot 3 of said block, and strip enclosed, as hereinbefore described from J. C. and P. C. Overton, members of the Muskogee (Creek) Tribe of Indians, who had the legal right to sell and convey the same, such conveyance being attached as an exhibit and properly designated, it appearing at that time that said Amanda Leak went by the name of Amanda Proctor; that immediately after such purchase from the Overtons the defendants inclosed said lot or property, which did not exceed four acres, and built thereon a four-room house, and at the time this action was instituted by the plaintiff that she, with her husband, Leonard Leak, was residing thereon and in actual possession of the same, and had been continuously from the 25th day of March, 1897; that such inclosed property of which they were in the actual possession, with improvements thereon as aforesaid, comprised what is known as said lot number 2, and the strip off of said lot number 3 hereinbefore described; that the said lots were laid off and platted by the town-site commission of the city of Wagoner appointed and acting under authority of act of Congress approved March 1, 1901, c. 676, 31 Stat. 861, and that said lot number 2 was scheduled to defendant Amanda Leak and lot number 3 was scheduled by the commission to plaintiff Winnie Joslin; that the said defendants are uneducated people, and did not know that said commission had scheduled any part of said inclosure to plaintiff until 60 days prior to the institution of this action, at which time said plaintiff undertook forcibly to take possession of said strip inside of defendants' inclosure, and that up to that time defendants believed that the land inclosed by said inclosure was comprised in said lot 2, and they allege that said town-site commission, by a mistake of law, scheduled said strip to the plaintiff, when in fact uncontradicted and in law it should have been scheduled to defendant, and that the plaintiff never laid any claim to said strip until same had been scheduled to her as aforesaid; that said plaintiff had no right to said strip except the right that grew out of the fact that same was scheduled to her by said commission.
It is further alleged that the said inclosure containing said lot number 2 and the said fraction of lot number 3 covered all the land...
To continue reading
Request your trial