William Kay v. Agnes Kalyton

Decision Date25 February 1907
Docket NumberNo. 181,181
Citation27 S.Ct. 346,204 U.S. 458,51 L.Ed. 566
PartiesWILLIAM McKAY (Substituted for Mary Kalyton) et al., Plffs. in Err., v. AGNES KALYTON, by Louise Kalyton, Her Guardian ad Litem
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This suit was commenced in the circuit court of Umatilla county, Oregon, by the filing of a complaint in the name of Agnes Kalyton, suing by her mother, Louise Kalyton, as guardian ad litem. Mary Kalyton and six other persons were made defendants, one such (Charles Wilkins) being sued as the acting United States Indian agent at the Umatilla reservation.

It was alleged in substance as follows: By virtue of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. at L. 340, chap. 319), and the amendments thereto, a tract of land in the Umatilla Indian reservation was duly allotted on April 21, 1891, to one Joe Kalyton, a member of the Cayuse tribe, residing on said reservation. It was alleged that in or about the year 1893 Joe Kalyton, the allottee, in accordance with the customs of the Cayuse tribe, married Louise _____, an Indian woman of that tribe, and the plaintiff, Agnes Kalyton, was issue of the marriage. In 1898 Joe Kalyton died intestate, leaving the plaintiff as his sole heir, and, under the laws of Oregon and the provisions of the act of Congress referred to, she became entitled to the land allotted to her father, and to the possession and enjoyment thereof. It was charged that Mary Kalyton and four of the defendants, all insolvent, claiming to be the heirs of the deceased, had taken and held possession if the land in question, which had a rental value of $274.75 per annum. It was alleged that one of the defendants, named Glasscock, claimed to have some interest in the land, and was confederating with the other defendants, who were wrongfully alleging themselves to be the heirs of Joe Kalyton, with the object of depriving plaintiff of the use of the land and the enjoyment of the rents and profits thereof. Averring that, under the rules and regulations of the Department of the Interior, in order that plaintiff might obtain the use and enjoyment of the land, it was requisite that her status as legal heir of the deceased should be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction, the court was asked to so decree and to perpetually restrain the defendants from interfering with her possession and use of the land. General relief was also prayed.

An answer was filed on behalf of the defendant Mary Kalyton. It was therein denied in substance that there had been a marriage between Joe and Louise Kalyton, and that the plaintiff was their child, and, averring that Joe Kalyton was a resident and citizen of Oregon and had died intestate, unmarried, and without any lineal descendant, it was alleged that the defendant, as the sister of Joe Kalyton, was his sole heir, and as such was the owner of, and entitled to the posses- sion of , the land in controversy and to its enjoyment. A decree was prayed quieting her alleged title.

The others of the defendants, who were alleged to be confederating with Mary Kalyton, filed a disclaimer of any interest in the lands in controversy. The cause was heard by the court. Deciding that, if Joe Kalyton and Louis Kalyton had been married according to the custom of the Indians of the Cayuse tribe, such marriage would have been void, and that there had been no marriage between the parties, because none had been solemnized in accordance with the laws of the state of Oregon, the plaintiff was held to be an illegitimate child of the deceased, and to have no right, title, or interest in or to the lands in question, and a decree was entered in favor of the defendant Mary Kalyton.

The cause was appealed to the supreme court of the state of Oregon. That court, having found that Joe and Louise Kalyton were married according to the custom and usage of the Indian tribe to which they belonged, and that the plaintiff was the issue of such marriage, held, in view of the legislation of Congress, 'that the plaintiff herein was born in lawful wedlock and is the sole heir of Joe Kalyton, deceased, and, as such, entitled to the possession of the real property of which he died seised.' The decree of the trial court was, therefore, reversed, and a decree was entered in favor of the appellant in accordance with the opinion. A motion for a rehearing was made and overruled. This motion was based upon the contention that the court had erred in taking jurisdiction of the cause, for the reason that it involved the title and right to possession of public land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Indians, and hence the United States was a necessary party defendant, and not subject to the jurisdiction of a state court. We say the petition for a rehearing was based upon the grounds just stated, although the petition is not in the record, because it is manifest that such was the case from the opinion which the court delivered in refusing the rehearing. 45 Or. 116, 74 Pac. 491, 78 Pac. 332. In that opinion the question whether the matter was one of exclusive Federal cognizance was elaborately considered, and it was decided that it was not, because a decree as to the right of possession would not interfere with the title or trust interest of the United States. And the court declared that, for the purposes of determining its jurisdiction, it was wholly irrelevant to consider whether it would have the power to enforce its decree for the possession of the allotted land against the officer of the United States in charge of the Indian reservation in case that official should decline to give effect to the decree for possession.

The case was then brought to this court.

Messrs. Samuel Herrick, T. G. Hailey, and R. J. Slater for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. William Frye White and John B. Cotton for defendant in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice White:

Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

It is contended that we are without jurisdiction because no title, right, or immunity was specially set up or claimed under any Federal statute and denied. But, leaving aside for a moment all other considerations, it is plain that the defendant below set up a claim of immunity from suit in the state court under the laws of the United States, and that the right to the immunity so asserted under an act or acts of Congress was expressly considered and denied by the state court. True it is that the immunity which was asserted was first claimed in a petition for rehearing; but, as the question was raised, was necessarily involved, and was considered and decided adversely by the state court, there is jurisdiction. Leigh v. Green, 193 U. S. 79, 48 L. ed. 623, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390.

At the threshold lies the question raised and decided below relative to the jurisdiction of the state court over the controversy.

Allotments of land in severalty to Indians residing upon the Umatilla reservation, in Oregon, were authorized by the act of Congress of March 3, 1885, chap. 319 (23 Stat. at L. 340), which contained the following provision:

'The President shall cause patents to issue to all persons to whom allotments of lands shall be made under the provisions of this act, which shall be of the legal effect and declared that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted, for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made, or, in case of his decease, of his heirs, according to the laws of the state of Oregon, and that, at the expiration of said period, the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian or his heirs as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust, and free of all charge or encumbrance whatsoever. Provided, That the law of alienation and descent in force in the state of Oregon shall apply thereto after patents have been executed, except as herein otherwise provided.'

The allotment to Joe Kalyton was made on April 21, 1891. Before that allotment, Congress, on February 8, 1887 (chap. 119, 24 Stat. at L. 388), passed what is known as the general allotment act. By that act, as said in United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 435, 47 L. ed. 532, 535, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478, provision was made for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations, and for extending the protection of the laws of the United States and the territories over the Indians. To that end the President was authorized, whenever, in his opinion, a reservation or any part thereof was advantageous for agriculture and grazing purposes, to cause it, or any part thereof, to be surveyed, or resurveyed, if necessary, and to allot the lands in the reservation in severalty to any Indian located thereon, in certain quantities specified in the statute, the allotments to be made by special agents appointed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • Carmen, Application of
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 2 August 1957
    ...is not open to controversy. United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 437, 23 S.Ct. 478, 47 L.Ed. 532, 536; McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. 458, 466, 468, 27 S.Ct. 346, 51 L.Ed. 566, 570, 571; Couture v. United States, 207 U.S. 581, 28 S.Ct. 259, 52 L.Ed. 350; United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. ......
  • United States v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 27 June 1983
    ...1213 (1938); United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432, 442, 46 S.Ct. 561, 563, 70 L.Ed. 1023 (1926); McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. 458, 469, 27 S.Ct. 346, 350, 51 L.Ed. 566 (1907); Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 396, 22 S.Ct. 650, 659, 46 L.Ed. 954 (1902); United States v. Kagama, 118 ......
  • Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida, New York
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 21 January 1974
    ...period of time. Cf. Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 386 n. 1, 59 S.Ct. 292, 294, 83 L.Ed. 235 (1939); McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. 458, 27 S.Ct. 346, 51 L.Ed. 566 (1907). Insofar as the underlying right to possession is concerned, Taylor is more like those cases indicating that 'a c......
  • Arenas v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 19 February 1951
    ...taken from him by acts of 1894 and February 6, 1901, chap. 217, 31 Stat. at L. 760, Comp. Stat.1913, § 4214. McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. 458, 468, 27 S.Ct. 346, 51 L.Ed. 566, 570. It made his jurisdiction exclusive in terms, it made no exception for pending litigation, but purported to be un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • §14.3 Basic Procedures for Probate of Indian Trust Property
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Estate Planning, Probate, and Trust Administration in Washington (WSBA) Chapter 14
    • Invalid date
    ...Department of the Interior has exclusive jurisdiction to probate Indian trust property. 25 U.S.C. §§372-373, 1322(b); McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. 458, 27 S.Ct. 346, 51 L. Ed. 566 (1907) (jurisdiction exclusive of state or federal courts). In Oklahoma, however, some allotments are probated in......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Estate Planning, Probate, and Trust Administration in Washington (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...S.Ct. 1, 44 L. Ed. 49 (1899): 14.2(3) Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003): 17.4(8) McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. 458, 27 S.Ct. 346, 51 L. Ed. 566 (1907): 14.2(1)(a), 14.3(1) Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. (6 Otto) 76, 24 L. Ed. 826 (1877): 17.3(3) Morton v. Manca......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 3: Real Property Interests & Duties of Third Parties (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2199, 183 L. Ed. 2d 211 (2012): 5.10 McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. 458, 27 S. Ct. 346, 51 L. Ed. 566 (1907): 5.14 Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1982): 5.4(2) Mich. Land & Lumber......
  • CHAPTER 19 EXAMINATION OF TITLE TO INDIAN LANDS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Mineral Title Examination (FNREL) 2012 Ed.
    • Invalid date
    ...as Part 81 and from April 15, 1971, through December 14, 2008, were embodied in 43 C.F.R. as Part 4, Subpart D; see McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. 458 (1907). The current regulations concerning Indian probate hearings are embodied in 43 CFR Part 30 effective December 15, 2008. [116] 43 C.F.R. §......
  • 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