United States v. Ransom

Decision Date11 September 1922
Docket Number5976.
Citation284 F. 108
PartiesUNITED STATES v. RANSOM.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

O. H Graves, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl. (Frank Lee U.S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.

N. A Gibson, of Muskogee, Okl. (J. L. Hull and T. L. Gibson, both of Muskogee, Okl., Ben D. Gross, of Eufaula, Okl., and George F. Short and William H. Zwick, both of Oklahoma City, Okl on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before LEWIS and KENYON, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.

LEWIS Circuit Judge.

This case was brought on and the issues which it presents were argued with those in U.S. v. Gray et al., 284 F 103, decided this day. The general principles to be applied are the same in the two cases, and reference is made to our opinion in that case to save repetition. This, however, is an action at law to recover some $4,000 paid to the county treasurer of McIntosh County under protest as the amount assessed and levied on lands and town lots for general taxes. The lands were purchased in seven tracts and comprise 1600 acres. The lots compose all of Block 3 in the City of Eufaula. They were bought for and deeded to Ella Jones, and the title was in her at the time of the assessment and levies. She is a full blood Creek Indian and is a minor. She was allotted 160 acres of tribal land and received patent therefor containing restrictions against alienation of the same until April 26, 1931. In February, 1912, her guardian, appointed by and serving under direction and control of the State probate court gave an oil and gas lease on the allotment, which was approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The lease reserved to the lessor 12 1/2 per cent. of the sale price of the oil, of which large quantities have been obtained and disposed of under the lease, and the royalties payable to Ella Jones, which were under the care of the Secretary of the Interior (Parker v. Richard, 250 U.S. 235, 39 Sup.Ct. 442, 63 L.Ed. 954; U.S. v. Hinkle (C.C.A.) 261 Fed 518), have been turned over to the superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes as a trust fund to be held by him and disbursed at the Secretary's discretion and direction for her benefit. The purchases appear to have all been made on request of the guardian. The procedure adopted was carried on in this way. The guardian would make application in writing to the Superintendent for funds to pay for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Jaybird Mining Co v. Weir
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1926
    ...McCurdy v. United States, 246 U. S. 263, 38 S. Ct. 289, 62 L. Ed. 706; United States v. Gray (C. C. A.) 284 F. 103; United States v. Ransom (C. C. A.) 284 F. 108. Any exemption that attached to the land is limited thereto and does not extend to the ore extracted therefrom. Forbes v. Gracey,......
  • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ETC. v. Seber
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 22, 1942
    ...McCurdy v. United States, 246 U.S. 263, 38 S.Ct. 289, 62 L.Ed. 706; United States v. Gray, 8 Cir., 284 F. 103; United States v. Ransom, 8 Cir., 284 F. 108, Id., 263 U.S. 691, 44 S.Ct. 230, 68 L. Ed. 508; see, also, Shaw v. Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corporation, 276 U.S. 575, 48 S.Ct. 333, 72 L.Ed......
  • United States v. Thurston County, Neb.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • February 23, 1944
    ...246 U.S. 263, 38 S.Ct. 289, 62 L.Ed. 706; United States v. Ransom, 263 U.S. 691, 44 S.Ct. 230, 68 L.Ed. 508, affirming United States v. Ransom, 8 Cir., 284 F. 108; Sunderland v. United States, 266 U.S. 226, 45 S.Ct. 64, 69 L. Ed. 259; and finally Shaw v. Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corporation, 276......
  • United States v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 29, 1925
    ...38 S. Ct. 289, 62 L. Ed. 706, and upon the decisions of this court in United States v. Gray (C. C. A.) 284 F. 103, and United States v. Ransom (C. C. A.) 284 F. 108. While this precise situation, involving the identical relationship between the parties, has not been before the courts of las......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT