Norton v. Larney, No. 146

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSUTHERLAND
Citation266 U.S. 511,69 L.Ed. 413,45 S.Ct. 145
PartiesNORTON et al. v. LARNEY et al
Docket NumberNo. 146
Decision Date05 January 1925

266 U.S. 511
45 S.Ct. 145
69 L.Ed. 413
NORTON et al.

v.

LARNEY et al.

No. 146.
Submitted Dec. 8, 1924.
Decided Jan. 5, 1925.

Page 512

Messrs. Nathan A. Gibson and Joseph L. Hull, both of Muskogee, Okl., for appellants.

Mr. Elias J. Van Court, of Eufaula, Okl., for appellees.

[Argument of Counsel from page 512 intentionally omitted]

Page 513

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit to quiet title to a tract of land in Oklahoma, alleged to have been allotted to Larney, a Creek Indian, as a distributive share of the lands of the Creek Nation. The District Court rendered a decree for appellees, which upon appeal was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 289 F. 395. In the trial court the jurisdiction was in no way called in question; but it was challenged, for the first time, in the Circuit Court of Appeals, and is challenged here. It is alleged that all the parties are citizens and residents of Oklahoma, and the question of jurisdiction depends upon whether the suit arises under a law of the United States. The bill avers that Larney went into possession of the allotment by authority of treaties between the Creek Nation and the United States and the laws of Congress dealing with the land and individuals of that Nation. We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that while this allegation is insufficient to establish jurisdiction (Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74, 34 S. Ct. 724, 58 L. Ed. 1218; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720, 34 S. Ct. 892, 58 L. Ed. 1557), it sufficiently appears elsewhere in the record that the suit arose under an act of Congress and its solution depended on the construction and effect of that act. On this the circuit court of appeals held the district court had jurisdiction and disposed of the case upon the merits. The Act of March 3, 1905, c. 1479, 33 Stat. 1048, 1071, provides:

'That the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes is authorized for sixty days after the date of the approval of this act to receive and consider applications for enrollments of children born subsequent to May 25, 1901, and prior to March 4, 1905, and living on said latter date, to citizens of the Creek Tribe of Indians whose enrollment has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior prior to the date of the approval of this act; and to enroll and make allotments to such children.'

In pursuance of that act the

Page 514

Commissioner (successor of the Commission, Martin v. United States, 168 F. 200, 93 C. C. A. 484) enrolled a child under the name of Cheparney Larney. The decision of the Commissioner recites that, in 1905, a Creek field party went to the home of this child, then about a year old, to obtain information in respect of his right of enrollment, that the parents refused to give any information, and that the child was thereupon called by the name of Cheparney Larney, 'Cheparney' being a Creek word signifying 'little boy.' The important words of the decision are:

'The evidence and the records of this office show that said Cheparney Larney is the child of Jacob Larney and Bettie Larney, whose names appear as 'Big Jack' and 'Bettie' on a schedule of citizens by blood of the Creek Nation, approved by the Secretary of the Interior March 28, 1902, opposite Nos. 8291 and 8292 respectively.'

Thereupon the Commissioner held that Cheparney Larney was entitled to be enrolled under the foregoing act of Congress, and the application for his enrollment was accordingly granted. The appellee, Larney, is the son of Jacob and Bettie Larney, and the evidence shows that the allotment deed was delivered to Jacob, the father, and that appellee went into possession of the land under the deed some time prior to the commencement of this suit. It appears from the evidence that Jacob and Bettie Larney are not the same persons as 'Big Jack' and 'Bettie,' but that they are citizens of the Creek Tribe and actually enrolled, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, at the right time, under the numbers 7968 and 8631.

On behalf of appellants it was contended that 'Big Jack' and 'Bettie,' his wife, had three children, the youngest of whom was known as Cheparney Larney, and that it is to this child the decision of the Commissioner relates. In support of this contention appellants insisted, and still insists, that the requirement of the statute—that children born to citizens of the Creek Tribe 'whose enroll ment

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
229 practice notes
  • Almakalani v. McAleenan, 18-CV-398 (NGG) (CLP)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 16, 2021
    ...asserting jurisdiction." Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Balfour Maclaine Int'l Ltd. , 968 F.2d 196, 198 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Norton v. Larney , 266 U.S. 511, 515, 45 S.Ct. 145, 69 L.Ed. 413 (1925) ). The court may refer to evidence outside the pleadings. See Makarova , 201 F.3d at 113 (citing Kame......
  • Allen v. Clark, No. 8158Y.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • March 29, 1938
    ...29 S.Ct. 552, 53 L.Ed. 955; Kinney v. Columbia Savings, etc., Ass'n, 1903, 191 U.S. 78, 24 S.Ct. 30, 48 L.Ed. 103; Norton v. Larney, 1925, 266 U.S. 511, 45 S.Ct. 145, 69 L.Ed. 413. Yet there could be no waiver of the jurisdictional amount. For it went to the jurisdiction over the subject ma......
  • Superior Motels, Inc. v. Rinn Motor Hotels, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 29, 1987
    ...Cir.1984) 737 F.2d 784, 786, fn. 1; Hicks v. Quaker Oats Co. (5th Cir.1981) 662 F.2d 1158, 1168) or res judicata. (Norton v. Larney (1925) 266 U.S. 511, 517, 45 S.Ct. 145, 148, 69 L.Ed. 413; Memorex Corp. v. Intern. Business Mach. Corp. (9th Cir.1977) 555 F.2d 1379, 1384; cf. Abraham v. Cas......
  • Wiltzius v. Town of New Milford, Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-661(JCH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • September 18, 2006
    ...court refrains from "drawing from the pleadings inferences favorable to the party asserting [jurisdiction]." Id. (citing Norton v. Larney, 266 U.S. 511, 515, 45 S.Ct. 145, 69 L.Ed. 413 (1925)). On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
229 cases
  • Almakalani v. McAleenan, 18-CV-398 (NGG) (CLP)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 16, 2021
    ...asserting jurisdiction." Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Balfour Maclaine Int'l Ltd. , 968 F.2d 196, 198 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Norton v. Larney , 266 U.S. 511, 515, 45 S.Ct. 145, 69 L.Ed. 413 (1925) ). The court may refer to evidence outside the pleadings. See Makarova , 201 F.3d at 113 (citing Kame......
  • Allen v. Clark, No. 8158Y.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • March 29, 1938
    ...29 S.Ct. 552, 53 L.Ed. 955; Kinney v. Columbia Savings, etc., Ass'n, 1903, 191 U.S. 78, 24 S.Ct. 30, 48 L.Ed. 103; Norton v. Larney, 1925, 266 U.S. 511, 45 S.Ct. 145, 69 L.Ed. 413. Yet there could be no waiver of the jurisdictional amount. For it went to the jurisdiction over the subject ma......
  • Superior Motels, Inc. v. Rinn Motor Hotels, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 29, 1987
    ...Cir.1984) 737 F.2d 784, 786, fn. 1; Hicks v. Quaker Oats Co. (5th Cir.1981) 662 F.2d 1158, 1168) or res judicata. (Norton v. Larney (1925) 266 U.S. 511, 517, 45 S.Ct. 145, 148, 69 L.Ed. 413; Memorex Corp. v. Intern. Business Mach. Corp. (9th Cir.1977) 555 F.2d 1379, 1384; cf. Abraham v. Cas......
  • Wiltzius v. Town of New Milford, Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-661(JCH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • September 18, 2006
    ...court refrains from "drawing from the pleadings inferences favorable to the party asserting [jurisdiction]." Id. (citing Norton v. Larney, 266 U.S. 511, 515, 45 S.Ct. 145, 69 L.Ed. 413 (1925)). On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance......
  • 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