March v. Peter

• Decision Date: 27 October 1936
• Docket Number: Case Number: 23729
• Parties: MARCH et al. v. PETER et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1936 OK 678

64 P.2d 912

179 Okla. 207

MARCH et al. v. PETER et al.

Case Number: 23729

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 27, 1936

Syllabus

¶0 1. INDIANS - Jurisdiction of County Court to Determine Heirship of Deceased Allottee Leaving Restricted Heirs Held not Exclusive Depriving District Court of Authority to Determine Same Question in Suits Involving Allotted Lands of Deceased if Heirship not Already Determined.

The authority vested in the county courts of this state by the Act of Congress of June 14, 1918, 40 St. at L. 606, to make a conclusive determination of who are the heirs of a deceased citizen allottee of one of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians having restricted heirs, is not exclusive. It does not deprive the district courts of the state of jurisdiction or authority to determine the same question in suits involving the allotted lands of such a deceased allottee. In such action, if there has been a previous valid determination of heirship by the probate court which has not been disturbed on appeal, it is conclusive on the question. Otherwise the district court may investigate the question and exercise its own independent judgment based upon the evidence produced.

2. SAME - District Court not Deprived of Jurisdiction to Determine Heirship by Mere Fact of Administration Proceeding Pending in County Court.

The mere fact that there is an administration proceeding pending in the county court having jurisdiction to administer the estate of a deceased citizen allottee of one of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians leaving restricted heirs does not deprive a district court of its jurisdiction to determine who are the heirs of such deceased Indian allottee in a suit involving his restricted allotted lands.

3. SAME - Order of County Court Determining Heirship Vacated on Appeal not Evidence of Who Are Heirs of Allottee.

An order of the county court purporting to determine the heirship of a deceased allottee leaving restricted heirs, which order has been vacated on appeal, is not evidence of who the heirs of such allottee are.

Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; Porter Newman, Judge.

Action by Lela Peters and others against Margaret March and others to quiet title to lands inherited from a deceased allottee and to avoid conveyances thereof. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Geo. E. Rider and Earl A. Brown, for plaintiffs in error.

Anglin & Stevenson, Vernon Roberts, and J.W. Rodgers, for defendants in error.

BUSBY, J.

¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Marshall county on July 13, 1929, by Lela Peter, now Peoples, Noel Peter, Enos Peter, Jesse Peter, and Raymond Peter, a minor, by his guardian and next friend, C.F. Peoples, as plaintiffs, against Margaret March, Mrs. Lester March Carlton, Clyde Jekell March, Mrs. Mona Sweeden, Marguerite March, Lucile March, George Sterling March, Jr., Kathleen March, John Abe March, heirs of George S. March, deceased, and Margaret W. March, administratrix of the estate of George S. March, deceased, Claud Chesnut, Lula Chesnut, Lottie Mitchell, Curtis Chesnut, Melvin Chesnut, Lucile Chesnut, heirs of C.C. Chesnut, deceased, and Lula Chesnut, administratrix of the estate of C.C. Chesnut, deceased, W.J. Hoggard, O.G. Rollins, Don Welch, and H.M. Rice. The plaintiffs in their petition sought to recover the possession of and quiet title to certain land situated in Marshall county. They also sought the cancellation of certain instruments of conveyance through which the defendants claimed title. Issues were joined by appropriate pleadings, and the cause was tried to the court on the 14th day of November, 1930. It was taken under advisement until the 18th day of May, 1931, at which time judgment was rendered granting in part the relief sought.

¶2 The existing situation and the reasons for the decision are set forth in the journal entry with such clarity that we quote at length from the same. Omitting the preliminary recitations, the judgment reads:

"And now on this 18th day of Mat. (sic) 1931, the court after hearing testimony of witnesses, duly sworn and examined in open court on November 15, 1930, statement of counsel and being fully advised in the premises finds that Stephens Peter was full-blood Choctaw Indian, duly enrolled as such opposite roll No. 691, and that he received as his portion of the land of the Choctaw Nation the following described property in Marshall county, Okla., to wit:

"The west half (W. 1/2) and the west half of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter (W. 1/2 S.W. 1/4 N.E. 1/4) of section 22, township 7 south, range 5 east of the Indian Meridian.

"The court further finds that there was allotted to the said Stephen Peter as his homestead allotment, the following described land, to wit:

"The southwest quarter (S.W. 1/4) of section 22, township 7 south, range 5 east of the Indian Meridian, in Marshall county, Okla.

"The court further finds that the said Stephen Peter died intestate while domiciled in Marshall county, Okla., on or about the 13th day of April, 1918, seized and possessed of the above-described land, and leaving him surviving his widow, Lela Peter, and four (4) children, namely, Noel, Enos, Jesse and Raymond, and each of said heirs inherited an undivided one-fifth (1/5) interest in said property.

"The court further finds that the said Raymond Peter was born subsequent to March 4, 1906, and by reason of this fact said homestead allotment was inalienable under the Act of Congress restricting homesteads until April 26, 1931, and that Raymond Peter was entitled to possession of said homestead during this time.

"The court further finds that subsequent to the filing of this suit Jesse Peter died intestate, unmarried and without issue, leaving him surviving as his sole and only heirs at law his three (3) brothers, Noel, Enos and Raymond, who inherited his estate.

"The court further finds that on the 22nd day of April, 1918, Lela Peter, by warranty deed, attempted to convey her interest in the allotment of Stephen Peter, deceased, to George S. March; that on the 11th day of October, 1918, Noel Peter and his wife attempted to convey his interest in the allotment of Stephen Peter, deceased, to C.C. Chesnut; that on the 25th day of November, 1919, Enos Peter, by deed, attempted to convey his interest in said allotment to Claud Chesnut and W.J. Hoggard; that Jesse Peter, on the 9th day of December, 1922, attempted to convey his interest in said allotment to H.M. Rice.

"The court further finds that said deeds from each of said heirs in so far as they attempt to convey the homestead allotment of said deceased, to wit: the southwest quarter of section 22, township 7 south, range 5 east of I. M., are void and of no force and effect for the reason that said allotment was restricted until April 26, 1931.

"The court further finds that said homestead allotment is owned by the following heirs of Stephen Peter, deceased, in the following proportions, to wit:

"Lela Peter, an undivided 3/15ths interest;

"Noel Peter, an undivided 4/15ths interest;

"Enos Peter, an undivided 4/15ths interest;

"Raymond Peter, an undivided 4/15ths interest;

- subject to the use and benefit of the said Raymond Peter until April 26th, 1931.

"The court further finds that Raymond Peter was the owner of an undivided one-fifth (1/5) interest in the surplus allotment of Stephen Peter, deceased, to wit:

"The northwest quarter, and the west half of the southwest quarter of the north east quarter of section 22, township 7 south, range 5 east of I. M.,

- and that said plaintiff is entitled to have said property quieted ill him.

¶3 It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the plaintiffs be and they are hereby decreed to be the owners of the southwest quarter of section 22, township 7 south, range 5 east of I. M., in the following proportions, to wit:

"Lela Peter, an undivided 3/15ths interest;

"Noel Peter, an undivided 4/15ths interest;

"Enos Peter, an undivided 4/15ths interest;

"Raymond Peter, an undivided 5/15ths interest;

"It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that Raymond Peter be and he is hereby decreed to be the owner of an undivided one-fifth (1/5th) interest in and to the following described land, to wit:

"The northwest quarter, and the west half of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 22, township 7 south, range 5 east of I. M., Marshall county, Okla.

¶4 It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the plaintiffs have judgment against the defendants quieting their title in said property as against all claims or demands of said defendants, or either of them, and those claiming by, through or under them, and that said defendants and each of them, and those claiming by, through or under them, be, and they are hereby forever barred and foreclosed from setting up or asserting any right, title or interest or estate in said property adverse to the title of said plaintiffs, and that said plaintiffs have and recover their costs; the question of an accounting as to rentals is passed for further hearing.

"To which action of the court the defendants duly and regularly except."

¶5 It will be observed from the foregoing judgment that the basis of the court's decision was its determination as a question of fact that Raymond Peter was an heir of Stephen Peter, deceased, and as such owned a part of the real estate involved in the action. The court also found that Raymond Peter was born since March 4, 1906, and that by reason thereof the attempted conveyance of the homestead allotment was void because the same remained inalienable for the use and benefit of Raymond Peter in accordance with the Act of Congress of May 27, 1908. It was also concluded by the court that the conveyance as to the surplus allotment of the deceased ancestor was invalid and ineffective as to the one-fifth interest of Raymond Peter.

¶6 In presenting the case to this court on appeal the defendants do not...