State ex rel. Miller v. Huser

• Decision Date: 15 July 1919
• Docket Number: Case Number: 10517
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MILLER et al. v. HUSER, Okfuskee County Judge.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1919 OK 218

184 P. 113

76 Okla. 130

STATE ex rel. MILLER et al. v. HUSER, Okfuskee County Judge.

Case Number: 10517

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: July 15, 1919

Syllabus

¶0 1. Courts--Grant by Congress of Additional Jurisdiction to State Courts and Officers.

The judicial power granted by section 1, art. 3, of the Constitution of the United States, is the power to try the ten classes of cases specified in section 2 of that article; but said sections neither expressly nor impliedly prohibit the Congress from conferring judicial power upon other courts, or upon executive or other officers, in other cases, where, in its opinion, the devolution of such power is either necessary or convenient in the execution of the authority granted to the legislative or to the executive department of the government through the Constitution. The congressional power to make such grant and to vest such power in state courts and officers, in such cases, exists by virtue of the established rule that the grant of a power to accomplish an object is a grant of the authority to select and use the appropriate means to attain it. Levin v. United States, 128 F. 826, 63 C.C.A. 476.

2. Same--Indian Affairs.

The government of the Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes and the management of their property and affairs is a political and administrative function, and the power and duty of the United States to legislate for restricted Indians and their property during the continuance of the national guardianship over them is well established, and it is entirely competent for Congress to confer upon and delegate to individuals, courts, commissions, boards, tribunals, or other agencies administrative or ministerial duties, even though such duties involve the exercise by them of judicial or quasi judicial power.

3. Same--State Courts--Conferred Jurisdiction.

The Act of Congress of June 14, 1918 (40 Stat. 606, c. 101, sections 4234a, 4234b, Append. Comp. St. 1918), entitled "An act to provide for a determination of heirship in cases of deceased members of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians in Oklahoma, conferring jurisdiction upon district courts to partition lands belonging to full-blood heirs of allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes," is not unconstitutional and void, nor in contravention of sections 1 and 2, art. 3, of the Constitution of the United States, but is a proper and lawful exercise of the political and administrative power and duty of Congress to legislate for restricted Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes concerning their property during the continuance of the national guardianship over such restricted Indians.

4. States--Federal Legislation--Supreme Law.

The national government, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579.

5. Indians--Congressional Acts Supreme--State Law--Courts.

The plenary authority of congress to legislate for full-blood members of the Five Civilized Tribes concerning their restricted lands cannot be limited or impaired by the Constitution or laws of the state, and section 12, art. 7, of the state Constitution, does not prohibit the county courts from exercising the authority conferred on said courts by the Act of Congress of June 14, 1918 (U. Su. s. Comp. St. 1918, secs. 4234a, 42334b, Appen.)

6. Same.

The state has not prohibited county courts from exercising the authority conferred on them by said act, but, on the contrary, has specifically sanctioned it. Chapter 25, Sess. Laws 1919.

7. Same--Powers of Courts.

The power and authority conferred on the county courts by said act, though it involves the exercise by said courts of judicial or quasi judicial power, is not strictly judicial, but is administrative and ministerial, and in determining, pursuant to said act, as a question of fact who are the heirs of any deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes, the court merely finds the facts and fixes the status, which finding, when material to the question at issue, is conclusive and binding upon the state courts and upon the administrative officers of the national government in determining questions arising under acts of Congress to which it is applicable. The act, however, does not deprive the district courts of this state of jurisdiction of suits involving lands allotted to an Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes who may die or may have heretofore died leaving restricted heirs, where such suit necessarily includes the determination of the title, and, incidentally, the question of fact as to who are the heirs of said deceased allottee.

8. Same--Writ of Prohibition.

Prohibition will not lie to restrain a county court from proceeding under the Act of Congress of June 14, 1918 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, secs. 4234a, 4234b, Appen.), as an administrative agency of the United States government to determine the question of fact as to who are the restricted Indian heirs of a deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians.

Original action for writ of prohibition by the State of Oklahoma, on the relation of Hall C. Miller and others, against W. A. Huser, as County Judge of Okfuskee County. Writ denied.

Ernest B. Hughes and John G. Elling hausen, for relators.

Lewis C. Lawson, for respondent.

RAINEY, J.

¶1 This is an original action filed in this court in the name of the state of Oklahoma, on the relation of Hall C. Miller, Ben H. Cash, and A. V. Rupprecht, wherein it is sought to prohibit W. A. Huser, as county judge of Okfuskee county, Okla., from proceeding under the Act of Congress of June 14, 1918, c. 101, 40 Stat. 606 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, secs. 4234a, 4234b, Append.), entitled:

"An act to provide for a determination of heirship in cases of deceased members of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians in Oklahoma, conferring jurisdiction upon district courts to partition lands belonging to full-blood heirs of allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes."

¶2 Said act reading as follows:

"A determination of the question of fact as to who are the heirs of any deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians who may die or may have heretofore died, leaving restricted heirs, by the probate court of the state of Oklahoma having jurisdiction to settle the estate of said deceased, conducted in the manner provided by the laws of said state for the determination of heirship in closing up the estates of deceased persons, shall be conclusive of said question: Provided, that an appeal may be taken in the manner and to the court provided by law, in cases of appeal in probate matters generally; Provided further, that where the time limited by the laws of said state for the institution of administration proceedings has elapsed without their institution, as well as in cases where there exists no lawful ground for the institution of administration proceedings in said courts, a petition may be filed therein having for its object a determination of such heirship and the case shall proceed in all respects as if administration proceedings upon other proper grounds had been regularly begun, but this proviso shall not be construed to reopen the question of the determination of an heirship already ascertained by competent legal authority under existing laws: Provided further, that said petition shall be verified, and in all cases arising hereunder service by publication may be had on all unknown heirs, the service to be in accordance with the method of serving nonresident defendants in civil suits in the district courts of said state; and if any person so served by publication does not appear and move to be heard within six months from the date of the final order, he shall be concluded equally with parties personally served or voluntarily appearing."

"The lands of full-blood members of any of the Five Civilized Tribes are hereby made subject to the laws of the state of Oklahoma, providing for the partition of real estate. Any land allotted in such proceedings to a full-blood Indian, or conveyed to him upon his election to take the same at the appraisement, shall remain subject to all restrictions upon alienation and taxation obtaining prior to such partition. In case of a sale under any decree, or partition, the conveyance thereunder shah operate to relieve the land described of all restrictions of every character."

¶3 The principal allegations in the petition are that one Magie Yarhola, a full-blood Creek Indian, died in 1906, seized of an allotment of land in Creek county; that in October, 1918, Walter Templeton, Walter L. Ransom, and L. O. Lytle, filed an application in the county court of Okfuskee county, Okla., setting forth that they were the grantees of one Losanna Lewis, nee West, a restricted Creek Indian heir of the said Magic Yarhola, deceased, and praying for a determination of the heirship of the said Magie Yarhola, deceased. It is further alleged that petitioners in the county court of Okfuskee county caused notice to be given of the filing of said petition, notifying certain designated parties and any unknown heirs of the said Magic Yarhola, deceased, to appear and exhibit their respective claims of heirship, ownership, or interest in said estate on or before January 24, 1919. Relators also allege that all the persons so named either have or claim to have some claim, right, title, or interest in the estate of the said Magie Yarhola, deceased, either by virtue of being the restricted heirs of the said decedent, or by being grantees of such heirs. The petition herein then recites that the county court of Okfuskee county has no jurisdiction of the particular subject-matter of the proceeding attempted to be presented therein, for...