National Bank of Commerce v. Anderson

Decision Date25 June 1906
Docket Number1,288.
Citation147 F. 87
PartiesNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. ANDERSON
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Jesse A. Frye and Alfred E. Gardner, for plaintiff in error.

H. P Burdick and R. E. Evans, for the defendant in error.

Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.

GILBERT Circuit Judge.

The defendant in error, as the assignee of one Henry Taylor, an Indian, brought this action to recover from the plaintiff in error the sum of $1,830; the same being the share of said Henry Taylor in the proceeds derived from the sale of allotted land in the Yakima Indian reservation. The sale was made by the heirs of the deceased allottee, James Taylor, and the money was deposited with the plaintiff in error to the credit of said Henry Taylor, to be paid to him in accordance with certain rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. - The sale was had under the authority of section 7 of the act of Congress of May 27, 1902 (32 Stat. 275, c. 888), which provides as follows:

'That the adult heirs of any deceased Indian to whom a trust or other patent containing restrictions upon alienation has been or shall be issued for lands allotted to him may sell and convey the lands inherited from such decedent, but in case of minor heirs their interests shall be sold only by a guardian duly appointed by the proper court upon the order of such court, made upon petition filed by the guardian but all such conveyances shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and when so approved shall convey a full title to the purchaser, the same as if a final patent without restriction upon the alienation had been issued to the allottee. All allotted land so alienated by the heirs of an Indian allottee and all land so patented to a white allottee shall thereupon be subject to taxation under the laws of the state or territory where the same is situate: Provided, that the sale herein provided for shall not apply to the homestead during the life of the father, mother, or the minority of any child or children.'

The cause was submitted to the Circuit Court upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of the facts. Thereupon judgment was rendered for the defendant in error for the recovery of said sum and costs.

The question arising upon the writ of error is whether the proceeds of such a sale are payable directly to the heir of the deceased allottee, or are to be held in trust for his benefit, and paid to him in such sums as meet the approval of the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. It is admitted that Henry Taylor is a citizen of the United States, is an Indian of the Puyallup tribe, lives his own independent life, and is not dependent upon the government nor under official control. The land which was sold was allotted to James Taylor under the General Allotment Act of 1887. That act declared that the land should not be alienated by the allottee within a period of 25 years from the date of allotment. Under the terms of the act the allottee was allowed the use and occupation of the land, and the only limitation upon his title was the restriction against alienation within the specified period. The plaintiff in error contends that the proceeds of the sale took the place of the land upon which there had been restriction against alienation, and that the government of the United States as the guardian of Henry Taylor had the power and authority to exercise supervisory control over the money. The defendant in error contends that the act of May 27, 1902 removed that restriction as to lands of a deceased allottee by expressly declaring that the adult heirs of such an allottee may sell and convey the lands inherited from such decedent, that the power to sell is thus expressly vested in the heirs and is not given to any officer of the government of the United States, that the power to sell and convey implies the power to receive the proceeds of the sale, that Congress might have imposed restrictions upon the use of the money, and might have required that the money be held in trust for the heirs of such deceased allottees, but that it has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Board of County Com Rs of Creek County v. Seber
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 19 April 1943
    ...restricted allotted lands are immune from state taxation. See United States v. Thurston County, 8 Cir., 143 F. 287; National Bank of Commerce v. Anderson, 9 Cir., 147 F. 87. When this Court came to consider the tax status of lands of the character here involved, that is, lands purchased for......
  • United States v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 29 October 1925
    ...Law, 250 F. 218, 162 C. C. A. 354; United States v. Thurston County, 143 F. 287, 290, 291, 74 C. C. A. 425; National Bank of Commerce v. Anderson, 147 F. 87, 90, 77 C. C. A. 259. Appellees seek to make the distinction that in the Sunderland Case the lands were purchased with the proceeds of......
  • Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Cass County, Minn.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 9 April 1997
    ...to the GAA allowed Indian devisee to sell or convey inherited allotment before expiration of trust period); Nat'l Bank of Commerce v. Anderson, 147 F. 87, 90 (9th Cir.1906) (same); see also LeAnn Larson LaFave, South Dakota's Forced Fee Indian Land Claims: Will Landowners be Liable for Gove......
  • Mosier v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 22 April 1912
    ... ... 218; ... Rainbow v. Young, 161 F. 836, 88 C.C.A. 653; ... National Bank of Commerce v. Anderson, 147 F. 87, 77 ... C.C.A. 259; U.S. v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT