Tapp v. Stuart
| Decision Date | 08 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 897.,897. |
| Citation | 9 F. Supp. 23 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | TAPP et al. v. STUART. |
Goldsberry & Klein and George W. Reed, Jr., all of Tulsa, Okl., for complainants.
M. L. Holcombe, Clarence Lohman, Ralph A. Barney, and Robert Stuart, all of Pawhuska, Okl., for respondent.
Many of the facts material to the decision of this case on the merits are stated in Tapp v. Stuart (D. C.) 6 F. Supp. 577.
For more than twenty years prior to the commencement of this action, the Secretary of the Interior construed the pertinent acts of Congress as requiring that the administrator or executor of a deceased Osage Indian should be paid all trust funds subsequently accruing to the credit of the headrights owned by such Indian at the time of his death. May 25, 1915, the Solicitor of the Interior Department made a formal ruling that trust funds should be so paid (D-29630), and on March 11, 1916, this opinion was concurred in by the Comptroller of the Treasury (22 Comp. Dec. 457). Again in 1922 the Solicitor of the Interior Department made a similar ruling. On May 6, 1929, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior advised the superintendent of the Osage agency to follow that course in the instant case. The moneys in question were paid to respondent as administrator with the will annexed, and by him disbursed in due course of the administration of the estate of the deceased. In some instances, allowances were made for the support, as family allowance, for the minor son of the deceased, who was an heir of the deceased, and is a complainant herein. Checks were transmitted by the Osage agency to the respondent for the particular purpose, and were by him paid over to the guardian of the minor. These funds were from income from the headright.
This practice of long standing is not decisive of the law. It shows that the officers of the Department of the Interior paid the money to the administrator, and that the administrator received it and paid it out in good faith. The funds accruing to the headright, which were paid over to the administrator, were used by him for the payment of debts of the deceased, and for other purposes, under orders of the county court of Osage county, Okl., where the probate proceedings were pending. Complainants made no claim to the funds, but acquiesced in the disbursing of them by the administrator, prior to the instituting of this action. They were present in the county court and participated in the proceedings, although they were without knowledge of their legal rights with respect to such funds, but were advised only as to the departmental practice set out.
From the decisions in De Noya v. Arrington, 163 Okl. 44, 20 P.(2d) 563, In re Denison (Dist. Ct. Western Dist. Okl.) 38 F.(2d) 662, and Taylor v. Tayrien (C. C. A. 10) 51 F.(2d) 884, it is established that the departmental construction of the acts of Congress was in error, that the trust funds accruing after the death of the deceased should not have been paid to her administrator, but should have been paid directly to the heirs, and that such funds were not subject to administration by the county court of Osage county. In other words, such funds were payable directly to the heirs of the deceased, and were not subject to administration by the probate court; that court being without jurisdiction over such funds. The courts of Oklahoma were without jurisdiction of the members of the Osage Tribe until Congress conferred jurisdiction upon them. Limited jurisdiction was conferred, but the acts of Congress did not confer jurisdiction over the funds involved in this action. The various congressional acts with respect to the jurisdiction of probate courts of Oklahoma over Osage Indians are referred to in United States v. Hughes (Dist. Ct., Northern Dist. Okl.) 6 F. Supp. 972.
If an administrator in good faith pays out funds under order of a county court having jurisdiction of the administration of the estate of a deceased, the order of the court protects him from personal liability if the court had jurisdiction to make the order. In re Coyne's Estate, 103 Okl. 279, 229 P. 630; O'Neill v. Cunningham, 119 Okl. 157, 244 P. 444. Complainants urge that these funds were not within the jurisdiction of the county court of Osage county, and that court was without any power or authority to adjudicate the ownership thereof so as to bind these claimants, or to disburse such funds for any purpose, so that respondent can claim no protection by virtue of the orders of the county court of Osage county. In administering the estate of the deceased, the probate court may inquire into the title to property apparently belonging to the estate in order to facilitate the orderly progress of business in that court, but, if and when it appears that the title to the property is claimed by another, that court has no jurisdiction to determine the question of title so as to bind the claimants, even though the claimants are the heirs or devisees of the deceased. In re Kelly's Estate, 132 Okl. 21, 269 P. 282; Hartwig v. Flynn, 79 Kan. 595, 100 P. 642; In re Belt's Estate, 29 Wash. 535, 70 P. 74, 92 Am. St. Rep. 916; Shaw v. Palmer, 65 Cal. App. 441, 224 P. 106; Simonton v. Simonton, 33 Idaho, 255, 193 P. 386; Maury v. Jones (C. C. A. 9) 25 F.(2d) 412. In the instant case, the probate court was without jurisdiction over the funds involved; its order with respect to the ownership of such funds was a nullity; it is not binding on the complainants, although they were present in the probate proceedings and participated therein.
The headright funds, as they are termed, being income of an Osage allottee from the mineral resources of the tribe, are restricted by congressional acts. United States v. Hughes, supra. The restrictions pertain to the direct payment to heirs of deceased allottees, as well as to restrictions to certain members not having competency certificates, not involved herein. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in Cowokochee v. Chapman, 90 Okl. 121, 215 P. 759, has held that restricted Indian lands are not subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased allottee, are not assets of such deceased allottee's estate subject to administration; that a probate court in distributing the estate of a deceased person has no jurisdiction to distribute any estate other than the assets of the estate subject to administration, and a decree distributing an estate over which the court has no jurisdiction is a nullity.
In the instant case, such funds are not subject to the payment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruce v. Globe Indemnity Co.
...of last illness and funeral. Tapp v. Stuart (D. C.) 6 F. Supp. 577, which was an opinion upon a motion to dismiss, and Id. (D. C.) 9 F. Supp. 23, filed in the case December 8, 1934, which was a decision upon the merits. Other decisions have also established that such funds, accruing after t......