Case ID: johns_19/html/0127-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Platt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The St. Regis Indians against Drum.
    All contracts for the purchase or sale, or occupation of land, made with any of the tribes of Indians within this state, without the previous consent of the state,are,by the constitution and laws of the state, illegal, and absolutely void.
    Therefore, the St Regis IndianS) though authorized By an act of the legislature, at their “ annual meetings, to make such rules, orders, and regulations respectingtheiv land, as they shall judge necessary,” &c. cannot maintain an action of assumpsit for use and occupation against a white man, who had occupied their land, under a parol agreement, as a tenant from year to year, at an annual rent, pursuant to the rules made by the plaintiffs, at their annual meeting, as to the improvement of their lands.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. An action of assumpsit for use and occupation was brought by the St. Regis Indians against Drum, (a white man.) The plaintiffs, by their attorney, offered to prove, that the defendant went into possession of the premises in question, as tenant of the plaintiffs, under a parol agreement to pay them a stipulated sum annually, on the first day of January, in each year, and that such letting was in pursuance of certain rules, orders and regulations, made by the tribe of St. Regis Indians, at their annual town meeting, respecting the improvement of their lands ; and, also, that the defendant had occupied and enjoyed the premises under the plaintiffs, as tenant from year to year, for four or five years, until the premises were purchased by the people of the State, in 1818. To the evidence so offered, the defendant objected, on the ground that the contract was illegal and void. The justice rejected the evidence, and nonsuited the plaintiffs.
   Platt, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

By the 37th article of the constitution of this.State, it is ordained, “ that no purchases or contracts for the sale of lands, made since the 14th day of October, 1775, or which may hereafter be made, with or of the Indians within the limits of this State, shall be binding on the said Indians, or deemed valid, unless made under the authority, and with the consent, of the Legislature of this State.”

By the 1st section of the “ act relative to the different tribes and nations of Indians, within this State,” passed the 10th of April, 1813, it is enacted, that if any person, without the authority and consent of the Legislature, shall, in any manner or form, or upon any terms whatsoever, purchase any lands within this State, of any Indian residing therein, or make any contract with any Indian, for, or concerning the sale of any lands, or shall enter on, or take possession of, or settle on any such lands, by any pretext or colour of any right or interest in the same, in consequence of any such purchase or contract made since the 14th day of October, 1775, every such person shall be deemed guilty of a public offenge, and is punishable by fine and imprisonment. (2 R. L. 153.) By the ,11th section oi the same act, (p. 157.) it is made penal for any person other than Indians, to settle or reside on any Indian lands, 8zc. The 14th section of the same act, authorizes the Si. Regis Indians, at their annual-meetings, “to make such rules, orders and regulations, respecting the improvement ol their lands, as they shall judge necessary,” &c.

Assumpsit foy use and occupation can be sustained only on a contract express dr implied. The wise policy of our government, from- its origin, has been to assume and exercise a guardianship over the Indian tribes, in regard to their right of alienating their lands; The principle assumed in our constitution, and followed by the legislature, has been, not merely to forbid white men to purchase, but also to incapacitate the Indians from selling, without the consent of the State. It is not like the privileges of infants and/emes coverts, or persons inopes concilii, in whose favour there is an election to” affirm or avoid contracts made with them. Contracts made with Indians for their lands, are not ■voidable merely j but absolutely void and illegal. Neither party can enforce them, nor establish any right whatever under them.

We are, therefore, of opinion, that the Justice decided correctly, and that the judgment ought to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.