United States v. Homeratha, 4050.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 4050.,4050. |
| Citation | 40 F.2d 305 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HOMERATHA et al. |
Roy St. Lewis, U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl., and C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and F. J. Ready, Jr., Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Harry O. Glasser, of Enid, Okl., for defendants.
KENNEDY, District Judge of Wyoming, sitting in the Western District of Oklahoma.
The above-entitled suit was submitted to me while sitting in the above-named court under assignment, upon an agreed statement of facts, trial by jury having been expressly waived, and upon briefs without oral argument. The nature of the suit was not therefore revealed until the briefs were filed and transmitted with the papers. The revelation that there is involved both Indian titles and income taxes suggests a double degree of discomfiture to this court in arriving at any satisfactory solution of the problems presented.
A sketch of the facts would appear to be as follows: On January 17, 1907, there was allotted to one Rachel H. Robedeaux, an Indian of the Otoe and Missouri Tribe of Indians, certain real estate in the Western district of Oklahoma. On June 10, 1907, there was issued a trust deed to said Indian covering the land in controversy, which instrument prescribes that it was allotted to said Indian subject to all statutory provisions and restrictions in trust for her sole use and benefit, and that at the expiration of the period for which said restriction was made, it would be conveyed to her in fee discharged from said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever, provided that if she died before the expiration of the period of restriction the allotment upon which it was based should be canceled and the land should revert to the United States and be thereafter disposed of in the manner prescribed by law. Thereafter, by duly authorized Executive order, the restrictive period was extended so that it had not expired at the time the controversy here arose and has not yet expired. In January, 1924, the said Indian, joined by her husband, executed a deed to eighty acres of the heretofore allotted land to her son, the defendant Homeratha, both mother and son being restricted, noncompetent Indians, in which deed the consideration recited was one dollar and contained the proviso that it should be "subject to the condition that while the title is in the grantee or heirs the land herein described shall not be alienated or incumbered without the consent of the Secretary of the Interior." The grantor also reserved the right to use all rents, profits, and minerals, especially oil and gas, during her life from the land conveyed. This deed was submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, with the statement by the agency superintendent that the deed contains the usual restrictive clause and also a clause reserving a life use in the land to the grantor. This statement further contained language to the effect that the parents claimed that their son was living with them and caring for them during their old age and in view of this they desired to deed him the tract. The deed was accordingly approved by the Secretary of the Interior on March 6, 1924. In April of the same year the said Rachel H. Robedeaux died, and thereafter the income from the property so conveyed was received by the defendant Homeratha or by the superintendent of the agency on his behalf. On his behalf likewise, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co. v. U.S., 77-1939
...to bind the land until the time prescribed by Congress is allowed to lapse. Couch v. Udall, 404 F.2d at 99; United States v. Homeratha, 40 F.2d 305, 306 (W.D.Okl.1930), Appeal dismissed,49 F.2d 1086 (10th Cir. 1931). It is the ownership of the United States which is important for legal purp......
-
Taunah v. Jones
...74 L.Ed. 478. In the lower courts it has been held that the income from such land is exempt from Federal income taxation. U. S. v. Homeratha, D.C. 1930, 40 F.2d 305. See also, Pitman v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 1933, 64 F.2d 740. Even though the Supreme Court has not yet decided this question......
-
Clinkenbeard v. United States, 1940.
...287 F. 468, affirmed, 266 U.S. 226, 45 S.Ct. 64, 69 L.Ed. 259; Drummond v. United States, 8 Cir., 34 F.2d 755; and United States v. Homeratha, D.C.W.D.Okl., 40 F.2d 305. In the United States v. Brown et al., supra, it was further held that the fact the lands of a full-blood Creek Indian, pu......
-
Garry v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 51904.
...special acts or provisions are required in order to make such income taxable. Blackbird v. Commissioner, 38 F.2d 976, and United States v. Homeratha, 40 F.2d 305 (decided on authority of Blackbird v. Commissioner, supra), appeal dismissed 49 F.2d 1086, are cited in support of the contention......