United States v. Mott, 136.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 136.,136. |
| Citation | 37 F.2d 860 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MOTT. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Charles B. Selby, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Seth W. Richardson, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Goldesberry, U. S. Atty., of Tulsa, Okl., and Louis N. Stivers, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.
Edwin S. Booth, of Washington, D. C. (Chas. B. Rogers, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges.
This suit was brought by the United States in behalf of one Jackson Barnett, a full-blood Creek Indian, to recover of appellee Mott $15,000 face value U. S. Government Bonds, or their proceeds or value if they have been converted. It is alleged that the bonds are the property of Barnett and that they came into the possession of Mott in this way: Barnett was allotted 160 acres out of Creek Tribal lands, which proved to be valuable in oil deposits. With the approval of the Secretary of the Interior the land was leased and large sums came into his possession from royalties paid for the oil produced, and these royalties, were invested in United States bonds, amounting in face value to more than one million dollars. The bonds were held by the Secretary of the Treasury. Early in 1923 Barnett and his wife went to Washington, and with assistance of counsel sought to induce the Secretary of the Interior to deliver to them $1,100,000 face value of these bonds, with the understanding that they would be used or disposed of as hereinafter stated. He finally complied with their request, got the bonds from the Treasury and $550,000 in face value were delivered to the Equitable Trust Company of New York, which was to hold them as trustee and from the income pay Barnett $20,000 yearly so long as he should live, the remainder of the income until Barnett's death to go to the American Baptist Home Mission Society of New York, and on the death of Barnett all of the income to be paid to that society. At the same time the additional $550,000 face value U. S. bonds belonging to Barnett were turned over to Barnett's wife, whom he had recently married and who is a white woman. Of the bonds so turned over to Barnett's wife the understanding was that she should deposit $200,000 thereof in the Riggs National Bank of Washington, D. C., to be held in trust, and of the yearly income $7,500 was to be paid to Barnett during his life, the remainder of the income during that time, if any, to be paid to his wife, and upon his death the whole income and various portions of the principal, were from time to time to be also paid to her or to her daughter until all thereof had been so paid. She complied with this part of the arrangement and deposited the $200,000 in bonds with the bank. Of the remaining $350,000 face value of said bonds turned over to her she immediately delivered $150,000 thereof to Harold C. McGugin, who appears to have been the chief adviser in the whole affair, and McGugin delivered $15,000 face value of said bonds to the defendant Mott. These are the bonds sued for.
Plaintiff further charged that the Secretary of the Interior, McGugin, Mott and others who participated in the transaction knew that all of the bonds were the property of Barnett and had been purchased for him with royalties on oil taken from his restricted allotment; they also knew that Barnett was a mental incompetent without capacity to make or to initiate the disposition and distribution of said bonds and that the officers of the United States participating in the transaction were without authority of law to dispose of said bonds in the manner stated, and that the disposition made of them was contrary to the purpose, intent and effect of the law in such case; that Barnett at the time was of the age of about 70 years, illiterate, mentally incompetent and wholly incapable of managing his own affairs or of caring for his property, and unable to appreciate and understand the nature and extent thereof, and that the delivery and distribution of said bonds was based upon a purported request in writing bearing the thumb print of said Barnett, which by reason of his mental infirmity he was wholly unable to comprehend and understand.
The foregoing facts were alleged in a second amended complaint. The original complaint is not in the record. The first amended complaint contains in substance the allegations of fact that have been stated, and in addition thereto it charged fraudulent conduct and a conspiracy on the part of Barnett's wife, McGugin, Mott and others to get for themselves a large part of Barnett's property. The second amended complaint omitted the allegations of fraud and conspiracy. The court below held that the tendered pleading did not state any ground for relief and denied the request to file it. This appeal was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Beams, 2174-2178.
...Trust Co., 34 F.2d 916; United States v. Equitable Trust Co. of New York, 283 U.S. 738, 51 S.Ct. 639, 75 L.Ed. 1379; United States v. Mott, D.C., 37 F.2d 860; Mott v. United States, 283 U.S. 747, 51 S.Ct. 642, 75 L.Ed. 1385; McGugin v. United States, 10 Cir., 109 F.2d 94. It was also adjudi......
-
American Nat. Bank v. AMERICAN BAPTIST HOME M. SOC.
...officials having supervision over his affairs find a gift to be within his means and for a worthy object. It was said in United States v. Mott, 10 Cir., 37 F.2d 860, 862, when referring to certain donations which were held to be excessive, that "no one would argue that reasonable sums for t......
-
McGugin v. United States
...34 F.2d 916, certiorari denied, American Baptist Home Mission Soc. v. Barnett, 278 U.S. 626, 49 S.Ct. 28, 73 L.Ed. 546; United States v. Mott, 10 Cir., 37 F.2d 860; Id., 283 U.S. 747, 51 S.Ct. 642, 75 L.Ed. 1385; Barnett v. United States, 9 Cir., 82 F.2d 765, certiorari denied, 299 U.S. 546......
-
House v. United States, 2809
...the Act. Sunderland v. United States, 266 U.S. 226, 45 S.Ct. 64, 69 L.Ed. 259; United States v. Brown, 8 Cir., 8 F.2d 564; United States v. Mott, 10 Cir., 37 F.2d 860. The manifest intent of the Act is to protect all restricted funds, whether consisting of allotments or proceeds or income t......