Williams v. Steinmetz

• Decision Date: 07 September 1905
• Citation: 16 Okla. 104,82 P. 986,1905 OK 119
• Parties: ROBT. L. WILLIAMS, et al v. CHAS. STEINMETZ, et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1905 OK 119

82 P. 986

16 Okla. 104

ROBT. L. WILLIAMS, et al v. CHAS. STEINMETZ, et al.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 7, 1905

Syllabus

¶0 1. INDIAN ALLOTMENT, LEASE OF--Void, When--Growing Crops. Tenant. A iease of an Indian allotment, which has not been approved by the secretary of the interior is absolutely null and void and where a party, under such lease, plants the land to corn and cultivates it, and the cattle of the allotee, in connection with the cattle of another, break down the fence and destroy such corn, the lessee cannot recover for the value of his share thereof, the lease having been made in violation of a positive statute, the law will grant him no relief.

2. INDIAN LANDS--Leased, How. Section 3 of the act of February 28th, 1891, ch. 383, 26 U.S. Stat. at Large, 794, does not authorize the leasing of the lands embraced within an Indian allotment, unless it is made to appear to the secretary of the interior that the allotee cannot, by reason of age or other disability, personally and with benefit to himself occupy or improve his allotment or any part thereof.

3. INDIAN ALLOTMENT--Rights of Allotee under Statute. The conferring of the rights of citizenship upon an Indian allotee does not authorize him to alienate or lease the land alloted to him, or to make any contract in relation thereto in violation of section 5 of the act of Feb. 8th, 1887. (Ch. 119, 24 St. at Large, 399.)

Error from the District Court of Caddo County; before Frank E. Gillette, Trial Judge.

Grinstead & Boys, for plaintiff in error.

A. J. Morris, and Glitsch & Glitsch, for defendants in error.

BURWELL, J.

¶1 A portion of section 31 of township 8, north of range 8, west of the Indian Meridian, in Caddo county, was alloted to Robert L. Williams, who was a son of W. G. Williams (a white man who had been adopted into the Caddo tribe of Indians) and of a Caddo Indian woman. During the month of April, 1901, Charles Steinmetz and W. H. Painter entered into an oral agreement with Robert L. Williams, the allottee, whereby they leased the land for one year, and were to pay therefor one-third of the corn and one-fourth of the cotton. They went into possession of the land and planted one hundred and ten acres in corn, and cultivated the same. The cultivated land was inclosed by a good fence.

¶2 W. G. Williams had leased certain lands known as pasture No. 10, the boundaries of which included this allotment, but it was expressly excepted from the land conveyed by such lease. His lease was in writing, and had been approved by the secretary of the interior, and did not expire until after the transaction involved in this suit. In this pasture were some seven or eight hundred cattle, two hundred of which belonged to W. G. Williams, and the others all belonged to Robert L. Williams. These cattle broke through the fence and destroyed the corn which had been planted by the lessees of Robert L. Williams. This action was commenced to recover for such destruction. Judgment was rendered against the defendants for $ 697, and they appealed to this court.

¶3 The first question to be determined is the rights of the plaintiffs under the oral lease made with the allotee; and in deciding this we should look to the federal statutes, and see what powers have been conferred on Indians in such circumstances. By article 4 of the treaty of June 4th, 1891, relating to the acquisition of the land in question, after providing for the allotment of lands to the members of the tribe interested, it is provided:

"When said allotments of land shall have been selected and taken as aforesaid, and approved by the secretary of the interior the titles thereto shall be held in trust for the allotees, respectively, for a period of twenty five years, in the manner and to the extent provided for in act of congress entitled: 'An act to provide for the allotment of land in severalty to Indians on various reservations, and to extend the protection of the laws of other purposes.' Approved February 8th, 1887. And at the expiration of twenty five years the title thereto shall be conveyed in fee simple to the allotees, or their heirs, free from all incumbrances."

¶4 It will be seen that the titles to these lands shall be held in trust for the allotees for a period of twenty five years, in the manner and to the extent provided for in the act of congress referred to in the section just quoted, which is section 5 of chapter 119 of vol. 24, U.S. Statutes at Large, page 387, which says:

"That upon the approval of the allotments provided for in this act by the secretary of the interior, he shall cause patents to issue therefor in the name of the allotees, which patents shall be of the legal effect, and declare that the United States does and will hold the lands thus alloted, 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 or territory where such land is located, 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 incumbrance whatsoever: Provided, That the President of the United States may in any case in his discretion extend the period. And if any conveyance shall be made of the lands set apart and alloted as herein provided, or any contract made touching the same, before the expiration of the time above mentioned, such conveyance or contract shall be absolutely null and void."

¶5 The making of the lease in question was plainly a violation of this statute. It was "a contract made touching the land" and "conveying the same" within the spirit of the law, and was therefore null and void.

¶6 In the case of Larson v. First National Bank (Neb.), 87 N.W. 18, it was held, where a lease had been taken from Indians for certain lands which had been alloted to them, and then a sub-lease made to a third party and a note taken for the consideration of such sub-lease, that the note was a part of the contract of sub-lease, and that the entire transaction was null and void, and that the note could not be collected even by an innocent holder.

¶7 The case of Beck v. Flournoy Live Stock & Real Estate Co., 65 F. 30, is also in point. Justice Thayer in discussing the power of Indians to lease their alloted lands, said:

"It is manifest, we think, from an inspection of the various acts to which reference has been made above, that congress did not intend to authorize, and has not in fact authorized, the members of Indian tribes to whom allotments of land have been made in severalty under the act of February 21st, 1863, and the act of Feb. 8th, 1887, to lease or otherwise dispose of their rights to use and occupy the lands alloted to them." And in the same connection stated further:

"These limitations upon the power of the Indian to sell or make contracts respecting land that might be set apart to them for their individual use and benefit were imposed to protect them from the greed and superior intelligence of the white man. Congress well knew that if these wards of the nation were placed in possession of real-estate, and were given capacity to sell or to lease the same, or to make contracts with white men with reference thereto, they would soon be deprived of their several holdings: and that, instead of adopting the customs and habits of civilized life, and becoming self-supporting, they would speedily waste their substance, and very likely become paupers. The motive that actuated the law-maker in depriving the Indians of the power of alienation is so obvious, and the language of the statute in that behalf is so plain, as to leave no room for doubt that congress intended to put it beyond the power of white men to secure any interest whatever in lands situated within Indian reservations that might be alloted to Indians."

¶8 The question arose again in the case of United States v. Flournoy Live Stock & Real Estate Co., 69 F. 886. Justice Shiras said:

"Leases made by members of the Omaha and Winnebago tribes of

...