Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, No. 511

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSUTHERLAND
Citation273 U.S. 315,71 L.Ed. 658,47 S.Ct. 361
Decision Date21 February 1927
Docket NumberNo. 511
PartiesPUEBLO OF SANTA ROSA v. FALL, Secretary of the Interior, et al

273 U.S. 315
47 S.Ct. 361
71 L.Ed. 658
PUEBLO OF SANTA ROSA

v.

FALL, Secretary of the Interior, et al.

No. 511.
Argued Jan. 11, 1927.
Decided Feb. 21, 1927.

Page 316

Messrs. W. C. Reid, of Albuquerque, N. M., H. P. Hibbard and Louis Kleindienst, both of Los Angeles, Cal., and Levi H. David, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

The Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General Mitchell, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

Our order granting the writ of certiorari in this case directed a hearing on the issue as to the existence of authority of counsel who filed the bill to represent complainant. That hearing now has been had.

The suit is brought to enjoin respondents from offering, listing or disposing of certain lands in Arizona as public lands of the United States. The case was here before on appeal (Lane v. Pueblo of Santa Rosa, 249 U. S. 110, 39 S. Ct. 185, 63 L. Ed. 504), and was remanded to the District Supreme Court, with directions to overrule a motion to dismiss on the merits and allow defendants to answer the bill. After receipt of the mandate, an answer was filed denying the allegations of the bill and alleging, among other things, that the so-called pueblo had never authorized the suit or ratified or approved the acts of the attorneys in bringing or prosecuting it; and upon that ground, a motion to dismiss, supported by affidavits, was filed at the same time. After a hearing upon the motion, the trial court postponed a decision until final hearing; and the taking of testimony was proceeded with, much of it relating to was issue now before this court.

Page 317

The record is a long one, but the pertinent facts may be shortly stated. About the year 1880, deeds were drawn and acknowledged by a number of Indians, conveying to one Hunter, as trustee, an interest in the lands, grants, and privileges of certain named villages. Among these deeds was one which purported to be made by 'Luis, captain of the village or pueblo of Santa Rosa,' for himself and inhabitants of that village and others, and to convey an undivided half interest in 720 square miles of land. At the same time, powers of attorney were executed by the various grantors. The only one with which we are here concerned is that given by Luis, the terms of which, we assume for present purposes, were sufficient to authorize Hunter to bring and maintain an suit like the present. It granted to Hunter powers of delegation, substitution, and revocation, and recited that, as it was 'accompanied with an interest, * * * it is hereby made irrevocable.' While Hunter was authorized to render services in establishing the claim of the Indians to the lands, it does not appear that he agreed to do so unless by implication merely; nor does it appear that there was any other consideration for the conveyance.

In 1911, Hunter entered into contracts with one Martin, by which the latter was to undertake to establish the Indian title and make certain cash payments in consideration of the conveyance to him of an undivided three-fourths interest in the lands which would fall to Hunter upon a partition between himself and the Indians. The same year, and long after the death of Luis, Hunter executed a delegation of his powers to one Cates. Hunter died in 1912, and this suit was brought in 1914 by a firm of lawyers of which Cates was a member. Cates died in 1920, several years before the motion to dismiss was heard in the court of first instance.

The Luis deed was not recorded in the counties where the lands are situated until 34 years after its execution

Page 318

and 2 years after the death of Hunter, the grantee. The delay is not explained. Careful and comprehensive inquiries, conducted among the Indians over a period of several years, failed to disclose any one who knew of any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 practice notes
  • Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, No. 84-262
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1985
    ...9. See, e.g., United States v. Chavez, 290 U.S. 357, 360-365, 54 S.Ct. 217, 218-220, 78 L.Ed. 360 (1933); Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315, 320-321, 47 S.Ct. 361, 362-363, 71 L.Ed. 658 (1927); United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432, 439-443, 46 S.Ct. 561, 562-563, 70 L.Ed. 1023......
  • F. PALICIO y COMPANIA, SA v. Brush, No. 61 Civ. 2299.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 21, 1966
    ...court has inherent power to make inquiry as to the authority of an attorney to represent a litigant. E. g., Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315, 47 S.Ct. 361, 71 L.Ed. 658 (1927); In re Retail Chemists Corp., 66 F.2d 605 (2 Cir. 1933); Sutherland v. International Ins. Co., 43 F.2d 96......
  • Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Town of Southbury, Nos. 15019
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 3, 1995
    ...Court, in a case strikingly similar to the case at bar, [231 Conn. 577] more than seventy years ago. In Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315, 317, 47 S.Ct. 361, 361, 71 L.Ed. 658 (1927), as in this case, a suit had been filed in the name of an Indian tribe pursuant to a power of attor......
  • Booth v. Fletcher, No. 6950.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • December 19, 1938
    ...re Gasser, both supra note 23; In re Illinois Fireworks & Display Co., D.C.E.D.Ill., 4 F. Supp. 200, 202. 26 Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315, 319, 47 S.Ct. 361, 362, 71 L. Ed. 658; Sutherland v. International Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 43 F.2d 969, certiorari denied 282 U.S. 890, 51 S.Ct.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, No. 84-262
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1985
    ...9. See, e.g., United States v. Chavez, 290 U.S. 357, 360-365, 54 S.Ct. 217, 218-220, 78 L.Ed. 360 (1933); Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315, 320-321, 47 S.Ct. 361, 362-363, 71 L.Ed. 658 (1927); United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432, 439-443, 46 S.Ct. 561, 562-563, 70 L.Ed. 1023......
  • F. PALICIO y COMPANIA, SA v. Brush, No. 61 Civ. 2299.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 21, 1966
    ...court has inherent power to make inquiry as to the authority of an attorney to represent a litigant. E. g., Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315, 47 S.Ct. 361, 71 L.Ed. 658 (1927); In re Retail Chemists Corp., 66 F.2d 605 (2 Cir. 1933); Sutherland v. International Ins. Co., 43 F.2d 96......
  • Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Town of Southbury, Nos. 15019
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 3, 1995
    ...Court, in a case strikingly similar to the case at bar, [231 Conn. 577] more than seventy years ago. In Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315, 317, 47 S.Ct. 361, 361, 71 L.Ed. 658 (1927), as in this case, a suit had been filed in the name of an Indian tribe pursuant to a power of attor......
  • Booth v. Fletcher, No. 6950.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • December 19, 1938
    ...re Gasser, both supra note 23; In re Illinois Fireworks & Display Co., D.C.E.D.Ill., 4 F. Supp. 200, 202. 26 Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315, 319, 47 S.Ct. 361, 362, 71 L. Ed. 658; Sutherland v. International Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 43 F.2d 969, certiorari denied 282 U.S. 890, 51 S.Ct.......
  • 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