Little Bill v. Swanson
Decision Date | 25 August 1911 |
Citation | 117 P. 481,64 Wash. 650 |
Parties | LITTLE BILL v. SWANSON et al. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford Judge.
Action by Little Bill, or Maquiqui, against John Swanson and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
E. D Wilcox and Wesley Lloyd, for appellant.
Bates Peer & Peterson, for respondents.
This action was originally commenced by Little Bill, or Maquiqui, against John Swanson, Hilma Swanson, his wife, Anton Nelson, Bertha Nelson, his wife, Gustaf Peterson, Anna Peterson, his wife, Elizabeth Spott Sahms, Willie Sahms, her husband, George Spott, and Edwin Eells, as guardian of George Spott, a minor, to recover 20 acres of land in Pierce county. From a judgment in favor of the defendants Swanson, Nelson, and Peterson, the plaintiff has appealed.
There is no material dispute as to the facts. On the evidence we conclude the findings made and entered by the trial judge must be sustained. From the evidence the following facts appear: The appellant, Little Bill, whose Indian name is Maquiqui, is of Indian birth. Since the year 1887 he has maintained no tribal relations, but has been a citizen of the United States. By virtue of a written treaty between the United States and certain bands of Indians, including the Puyallup Tribe, made on December 26, 1854, the land here involved, together with other lands, was allotted to George Jacobs, a member of the Puyallup Tribe, whose Indian name was Slowitson, but who was commonly known as George Jake. He took possession, and on January 30, 1886, the President of the United States issued to him under the name of George Jacobs a patent which contained restrictions on alienation. George Jake, who was a bachelor, died intestate on July 10, 1888, and left surviving him as his next of kin Little Bill, or Maquiqui, appellant herein, who was a brother of Betsy or Betholitza, the deceased mother of George Jake, and also left surviving him one Peter Spott, an Indian, his first cousin, who was the only son of a deceased sister of the deceased father of George Jake. At the time of his death George Jake was in peaceful possession of the land, holding under his patent. In March, 1890, Peter Spott, claiming to be sole heir at law of George Jake, caused a petition for administration upon his estate to be filed in the superior court of Pierce county. One Joseph Winyer was duly appointed and qualified as administrator. Due and regular administration was had by which it was adjudged that Peter Spott as next of kin and heir at law was entitled to the entire estate. Immediately after the death of George Jake, Peter Spott entered into the open, notorious, and adverse possession of the land, cleared the same, and erected buildings and made other improvements thereon. While he thus held and claimed the land, he was frequently visited by the appellant, Little Bill, who was aware of his possession and claim as sole heir at law of George Jake. On March 3, 1893, an act of Congress was approved (Act March 3, 1893, c. 209, 27 Stat. 633), providing for the appointment of three Puyallup Indian commissioners, and defining their duties, which, in part, were: Under date of * * *'November 6, 1893, the Department of the Interior of the United States sent written instructions to the commissioners: In 1895 the commissioners received further instructions, to the effect:
James J. Anderson, John W. Renfroe, and Ross J. Alexander, duly appointed and qualified in the year 1893 as Puyallup commissioners, proceeded with the discharge of their duties found and reported that George Jake died intestate in the year 1888; that he left Peter Spott, his first cousin, surviving him as his next of kin and heir at law, who under the laws of Washington became owner of the allotted and patented land of the decedent. This finding was later approved by the Secretary of the Interior. On January 1, 1899, Peter Spott, while in the exclusive possession of the land, died intestate, leaving surviving him a minor child named George Spott, and a widow named Elizabeth Spott, both Puyallup Indians, as his heirs at law, who continued in the occupation, possession, and exclusive use of the land until April 5, 1899, when it was sold to respondents herein as hereinafter stated. Elizabeth Spott later intermarried with one Willie Sahms, and has since been known as Elizabeth Spott Sahms. On July 2, 1897, Clinton A. Snowdon was appointed sole commissioner of the lands of the Puyallup Indian reservation under Act June 7, 1897, c. 3, 30 Stat. 87. In the year 1898 and prior to his death, Peter Spott, as heir at law of George Jake, pursuant to Act Cong. March 3, 1893, c. 209, 27 Stat. 633, and Act June 7, 1897, c. 3, 30 Stat. 87, supra, signed, executed, and acknowledged an instrument in writing whereby he consented to the sale of the land and appointed Clinton A. Snowdon, then sole commissioner of the lands of the Puyallup Indian reservation, the trustee to sell the land at its appraised value and make deeds to the purchases, all subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Such written consent was thereafter approved by the Secretary of the Interior. On January 18, 1901, the Secretary of the Interior, in answer to an inquiry from Clinton A. Snowdon, instructed him as follows: In pursuance of the written consent executed by Peter...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
...See also Patterson v. Hewitt, 11 N.M. 1, 66 P. 552, 55 L.R.A. 658, affirmed 195 U.S. 309, 25 S.Ct. 35, 49 L.Ed. 214; Little Bill v. Swanson, 64 Wash. 650, 117 P. 481; Felix v. Patrick, 145 U.S. 317, 12 S.Ct. 862, 36 L.Ed. 719; Weniger v. Success Mining Co., 8 Cir., 227 F. 548; Holman v. Gul......
-
Highrock v. Gavin
...of the treaty, or of an act of Congress, have expressly or impliedly prohibited or restricted its alienation.” In Little Bill v. Swanson, 64 Wash. 650, 117 Pac. 481, it was held that the title of an Indian, under section 5 of the 1887 act, is an inheritable estate-a holding absolutely in co......
-
Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
...also Patterson v. Hewitt, 11 N.M. 1, 66 P. 552, 55 L.R.A. 658, affirmed 195 U.S. 309, 25 S.Ct. 35, 49 L.Ed. 214; Little Bill v. Swanson, 64 Wash. 650, 117 P. 481; Felix v. Patrick, 145 U.S. 317, 12 S.Ct. 862, 36 L.Ed. 719; Weniger v. Success Mining Co., 8 Cir., 227 F. 548; Holman v. Gulf Re......
-
Crosbie v. Partridge
... ... of the deed in question are the Indian appropriation bill, ... being the act approved March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. L. 982; ... section 19, of the Act of April ... United ... States, 165 U.S. 257, 262, 17 S.Ct. 302, 41 L.Ed. 708; ... Townsend v. Little, 109 U.S. 504, 512, 3 S.Ct. 357, ... 27 L.Ed. 1012; Petri v. Creelman Lumber Co., 199 ... U.S ... Supreme Court of Washington, in the case of Little Bill ... v. Swanson, 64 Wash. 650, 117 P. 481, in the body of the ... opinion, used this language: ... "Statutes of ... ...