Simeon Hallowell v. John Commons, No. 135
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 36 S.Ct. 202,239 U.S. 506,60 L.Ed. 409 |
| Parties | SIMEON HALLOWELL, Appt., v. JOHN M. COMMONS, as Acting Indian Agent and Superintendent and Special Disbursing Agent for the Omaha Tribe of Indians of Nebraska, and Sarah H. Walker |
| Docket Number | No. 135 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1916 |
v.
JOHN M. COMMONS, as Acting Indian Agent and Superintendent and Special Disbursing Agent for the Omaha Tribe of Indians of Nebraska, and Sarah H. Walker.
Page 507
Messrs. Hiram Chase and William Ross King for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Knaebel for appellees.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a bill to establish the equitable title of the plaintiff to an allotment made to Jacob Hallowell, deceased, a member of the Omaha Tribe, in accordance with §§ 5, 6, of the act of August 7, 1882, chap. 434, 22 Stat. at L. 341. The patent to Jacob Hallowell followed the language of § 6, and declared that the United States would hold his land for the period of twenty-five years in trust for the sole use of the allottee 'or in case of his decease, of his heirs according to the laws of the state of Nebraska.' The plaintiff says that he is the sole heir as against various other claims set forth in the bill. We do not go into further particulars, as we are of opinion that the circuit court of appeals was right in holding that the district court had no
Page 508
jurisdiction of the case. 127 C. C. A. 343, 210 Fed. 793.
It is unnecessary to consider whether there was jurisdiction when the suit was begun. By the act of June 25, 1910, chap. 431, 36 Stat. at L. 855, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 4226, it was provided that in a case like this of the death of the allottee intestate during the trust period, the Secretary of the Interior should ascertain the legal heirs of the decedent, and his decision should be final and conclusive; with considerable discretion as to details. This act restored to the Secretary the power that had been taken from him by acts of 1894 [28 Stat. at L. 305, chap. 290] and February 6, 1901, chap. 217, 31 Stat. at L. 760, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 4214. McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 458, 468, 51 L. ed. 566, 570, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 346. It made his jurisdiction exclusive in terms, it made no exception for pending litigation, but purported to be universal, and so to take away the jurisdiction that for a time had been conferred upon the courts of the United States. The appellant contends for a different construction on the strength of Rev. Stat. § 13, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 14, that the repeal of any statute shall not extinguish any liability incurred under it (Hertz v. Woodman, 218 U. S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Part II
...270 U.S. 243 (1926); United States v. Bowling, 256 U.S. 484 (1921); Lane v. United States, 241 U.S. 201 (1916); Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506 (1916); Bertrand v. Doyle, 36 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1929). As such, it is imperative that the Secretary have all the information necessary to prop......
-
Indian trust management reform,
...256 U.S. 484, 41 S. Ct. 561, 65 L. Ed. 1054; Lane v. United States, 241 U.S. 201, 36 S. Ct. 599, 60 L. Ed. 956; Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 36 S. Ct. 202, 60 L. Ed. 409. Bertrand v. Doyle, 36 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1929). As such, it is imperative that the Secretary have all the inform......
-
Part IV
...256 U.S. 484, 41 S. Ct. 561, 65 L. Ed. 1054; Lane v. United States, 241 U.S. 201, 36 S. Ct. 599, 60 L. Ed. 956; Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 36 S. Ct. 202, 60 L. Ed. 409. Bertrand v. Doyle, 36 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1929). As such, it is imperative that the Secretary have all the inform......
-
Sierra Club v. Portland General Elec. Co., Civil No. 08-1136-HA.
...right but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case.'" Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (quoting Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 508, 36 S.Ct. 202, 60 L.Ed. 409 (1916)). However, the mere fact that a particular statute is jurisdictional, rather than substantive, does......
-
Sierra Club v. Portland General Elec. Co., Civil No. 08-1136-HA.
...right but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case.'" Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (quoting Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 508, 36 S.Ct. 202, 60 L.Ed. 409 (1916)). However, the mere fact that a particular statute is jurisdictional, rather than substantive, does......
-
Mills Mill v. Hawkins, No. 17312
...the act there involved was one creating a drainage district; but the following language of the opinion in that case is applicable here [239 U.S. 506, 36 S.Ct. 'It is to be remembered that a drainage district has the special purpose of the improvement of particular property, and when it is s......
-
Arenas v. United States, No. 12356.
...64 S.Ct. 1090, 88 L.Ed. 1363. 4 Gerard v. United States, 9 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 951. 5 25 U.S.C.A. § 372. 6 Hallowell v. Commons, 1916, 239 U.S. 506, 36 S.Ct. 202, 203, 60 L.Ed. 409. See, United States v. Bowling, 1921, 256 U.S. 484, 41 S.Ct. 561, 65 L.Ed. 1054; First Moon v. White Tail and......
-
Tam v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Case No. CV 08–06458 MMM (AJWx).
...usually ‘takes away no substantive right but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case.’ ” Id. (quoting Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 508, 36 S.Ct. 202, 60 L.Ed. 409 (1916)). 57. The Landgraf Court summarized its holding as follows: “When a case implicates a federal statute......