Smith v. Bonifer
Decision Date | 20 October 1904 |
Docket Number | 2,683. |
Citation | 132 F. 889 |
Parties | SMITH et al. v. BONIFER et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
R. J Slater and J. T. Hinkle, for complainants.
John H Hall, U.S. Atty., for defendants.
Under the act of Congress of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 341, providing for allotment of lands of the Umatilla Indian reservation to Indians residing thereon, the plaintiff Philomme Smith, a full-blooded Indian woman, and a member of the Walla Walla tribe of Indians, residing on such reservation with her family, made, as the head of such family, selections of lands subject to allotment for her children as follows: For George Smith, the N.E. 1/4 of N.W. 1/4 of section 29;for Sophia Smith, the S.E. 1/4 of N.W. 1/4 of section 29; for Maggie Smith, the N.W. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4 of section 29; for Lura Smith, the S.W. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4 of section 29; for Charles Smith, the N.E. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4 of section 29; for Janie Smith, the S.E. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4 of section 29. James Smith, a son of said Philomme Smith, over 18 years of age at said time, selected for himself the W. 1/2 of the N.W. 1/4 of section 29. It is alleged that the land so selected for George, Sophia, Maggie, Lura, Charles, and Janie, and that selected by James, was at the time and had been long occupied by said Philomme and her family, who had taken possession of settled upon, inclosed, and extensively improved the same with the consent of the head men of the tribe; that notwithstanding such settlement, occupancy, and improvements and the selections so made, the allotting commissioners disregarded such selections, and wrongfully allotted said lands to others, as follows: The lands selected for said Charles, Maggie, Janie, and Lura were allotted to Martha Herbert, now Martha Bonifer, one of the defendants; that selected for said George and Sophia, and that selected by said James, were wrongfully allotted to Margaret Bourner, now deceased; that such allotments were made while the plaintiff Philomme Smith and her said family were in the possession of such lands and had the same inclosed and improved as already stated, and that the allottees had made no improvements whatever thereon; that after such wrongful allotment the Secretary of the Interior caused the said plaintiff and her children to be dispossessed of said lands and of their improvements, to their damage in the sum of $5,000; that said allottees had actual knowledge of the possession and improvement of such lands by plaintiffs, and of the selections made by them and in their behalf; that, after the said allotments were made, the said George, Sophia, and Lura, all being minor children, died, leaving as their only heir their father, the complainant F. A. Smith, who claims to have succeeded to the rights and interests of said deceased minors in the selections made in their behalf; that about May 12, 1897, James Smith died, leaving as his only heir Elizabeth Smith, a minor aged eight years, in whose behalf, as well as that of Charles, Maggie, and Janie, all minors, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arenas v. United States, 1321 O'C. Civil.
...the law, it is equivalent, so far as the government is concerned, to a patent actually issued." (Cases cited.) See also Smith v. Bonifer, C.C.Or., 132 F. 889, 891; also dissenting opinion of Garrecht, Circuit Judge, in St. Marie v. United States, 9 Cir., 108 F.2d 876, 881, The Chancellor ac......
-
St. Marie v. United States
...right exists to do so creates an interest or right so vested that it descends to the heirs and fixes the right of property. Smith v. Bonifer, C.C., 132 F. 889, 891. In Bonifer v. Smith, 9 Cir., 166 F. 846, 849 (affirming 9 Cir., 154 F. 883; cases involve Umatilla Indian allotments), this co......
-
Lemieux v. United States
...the misconduct or neglect of a public officer, the law will protect it" (Lytle v. State of Arkansas, 9 How. 314, 13 L. Ed. 153; Smith v. Bonifer C. C. 132 F. 889; Smith v. Bonifer C. C. 154 F. 883; Bonifer v. Smith, 166 F. 846, 92 C. C. A. 604; Barney v. Dolph, 97 U. S. 652, 24 L. Ed. 1063;......
-
United States v. Fairbanks
...to protect the rights of Indians. It seems to have been the practice to make adverse claimants parties with the government. Smith v. Bonifer (C.C.) 132 F. 889; Patawa v. United States (C.C.) 132 F. 893; v. U.S. (C.C.) 132 F. 1004; Smith v. United States (C.C.) 142 F. 225; Waldron v. U.S. (C......