Walker v. Loud
Decision Date | 04 February 1907 |
Docket Number | No. 140,140 |
Citation | 27 S.Ct. 293,51 L.Ed. 495,204 U.S. 302 |
Parties | W. A. WALKER, Executor of the Estate of W. H. Ansley, Deceased, Appt., v. J. W. McLOUD, Trustee, and Francis I. Gowen, Receiver of the Choctaw Coal & Railway Company |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The appellant, who was plaintiff below, appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of appeals (70 C. C. A. 534, 138 Fed. 394) affirming a decree of the United States court for the central district of Indian territory, dismissing the appellant's bill on the merits. 5 Ind. Terr. 563, 82 S. W. 908.
The appellant describes this action 'as in the nature of ejectment on the equity docket, instituted for the purpose of securing possession of certain buildings and the right to the occupancy of the land on which they were erected, and to quiet plaintiff in his title and possession of the same, and to remove the cloud from the title.' The appellant is the executor of the will of W. H. Ansley, who was the purchaser of the buildings, hereinafter referred to, at the sheriff's sale.
The facts necessary to state in considering the question decided are as follows: The defendant McLoud is a trustee under a deed of trust, which need not now be more particularly stated, and defendant Gowen is the receiver of the Choctaw Coal & Railway Company, which was a corporation created under the laws of the state of Minnesota. By the 2d section of the act of Congress of February 18, 1888 (25 Stat. at L. 35, chap. 13), it was granted the right to take and use for all purposes of a railway, but for no other purposes, a right of way 100 feet in width through the Indian territory for its main line and branch. The 10th section of the act provided that the company should accept this right of way upon the express condition that it would neither aid, advise, nor assist in any effort looking towards the changing or extinguishing of the present tenure of the Indians in their land, and would not attempt to secure from the Indian nations any further grant of land or its occupancy than was provided in the act; and that any violation of the condition mentioned should operate as a forfeiture of all the rights and privileges of the company under the act.
The Choctaw Nation, on October 30, 1888, passed an act, the 1st section of which reads as follows:
While the above acts were in force and during the years from 1889 to 1893, both inclusive, it is charged that the company, through its officers and agents, built certain buildings at the town of South McAlester, Indian territory, outside and beyond its right of way, illegally and in violation of such acts, and were using the same in behalf and in the interest of the company.
In 1895 William Ansley, who was a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, and a deputy sheriff of the county where the buildings were erected, wrote to the governor of the Choctaw Nation and subsequently made a report in regard to the buildings as being erected by the company outside of its right of way, and that they were controlled by the company, and he was then directed by the principal chief of the Choctaw Nation to proceed according to law to sell and dispose of the buildings which had been built by the company outside its right of way. The sheriff proceeded to advertise the buildings for sale according to law, and in June, 1895, sold some of them to the appellant's intestate for $270; and the sheriff accepted his note as payment, conditioned that the same should be paid as soon as the purchaser was put into or otherwise obtained possession. This note has never been paid. The property purchased was, as alleged, of the value of about $60,000, and the purchaser was the son of the deputy sheriff who made the sale. The reason the money was not paid at the time of the bid, as stated by the bidder Ansley, was that the property was held by the company, and he was informed that it would take litigation to obtain possession. Immediately after the sale the sheriff who made it reported his action to the chief of the Choctaw Nation.
The appellant, upon the trial, offered in evidence the deposition of the deputy sheriff who made the sale, in relation to this matter, in which he swore that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Rhodes v. State
-
Johnson v. McKinney
... ... number of illustrations from the Supreme Court of the United ... States are given in the opinion. Among them: U.S., to Use of ... Wilson Walker, 109 U.S. 258, 3 S.Ct. 277, 283, 27 L.Ed. 927 ... In that case it was said: ... 'In ... this case the statute gave the court ... ...
-
Johnson v. McKinney
...v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423 and Magevny v. Karsch, 167 Tenn. 32, 65 S.W. 2d 562, 92 A.L.R. 343. So in Walker v. McLoud, 204 U.S. 302, 27 S.Ct. 293, 51 L.Ed. 495, it was held that where a statute authorized the sale of property for cash, a sale on credit was absolutely In Gibson v......
-
In re Receivership of Great Western Beet Sugar Co.
... ... (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 204; Porter v ... Graves, 104 U.S. 171, 26 L.Ed. 691; Camden v ... Mayhew, 129 U.S. 73, 9 S.Ct. 246, 32 L.Ed. 608; Walker ... v. McLoud, 204 U.S. 299, 27 S.Ct. 293, 51 L.Ed. 495.) ... The ... pretended sale by the receiver was not a sale at public ... ...