Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1879-10-10

Il. @. SMITH. Reporter.
or7o UHL1e, Re.ponde.t. 4
A. g. GARR1soox, and - /
GARRETT ANDEksoH, = soA 4
appellants.
In THE SUPREME CouRr OF rHr TtRat.'
TOBY OF DAKOTA, AT JuNE Tern, 1879,
l. Treaty Of 1868. By the treat, Of
1868, proclaimed blythe president Febfuan
"A, 1859, with the Sioux Indians, the dit
trict Of country known - the Black Hills.}
became 10 Indian reservation. d
2. Same, The skresment passed b.
congress, approved February %, 1877. q.
pressly admits that . reservation Va d.
fined BY article 2, Of said treaty, and nodi-
lies the same,-abrog9tes, article l6 Qf tho
treaty, and r~elinquishes and cedes the Black
Hills country 70 the United States.
3. Agreement Of lS77.a BIZ article 8 Of
The said aeSesment Provisions Of 1he'
treaty Of 1885" except = modified. cont.
nued In full force aud, with the pro1fsf6abbs
OF the agietmeut, shall apply to- ny
country which may hereafter bs occupied
BY those indians as . home. :
4. Locus IN quo. Indian C6sntrv. The
locus II quo wxs q al events Indian country.
to which the Indian title walsh not retin.
quished until BY, fierce OF. the ssid agree.
ment Of February. %, 1877.
&emble. When congress enacted. the
agreement with the Sioux Indians, approo.
we'd February %, 1877, it was virtually
admitted that those Indians had - title
which it was the object of the government
to obtain, to.wit: The title b. occupancy,
II not by express reservation.
3. But congress has, by article l Of said
agreement, expressly admitted thai ARR
sERvAT1oN Was defined BY article 2 of Tie
treaty, end the eame is therein modified by
congress. - afV3tils'
8. Contract. Ualarsa. A contract is
unlawful which ID contrary to IN express
provision Of law ; or contrary to the policy
Of express Law, though not expressly pro-
hibited ; or otherwise contrary to good
morals. etla
z. Lease. Estopple. In an action upon
q contract of lease which is unlawful and
void, = lessee 10 not stopped to deny his
landlords title.
8. Lease. Land In Indian couaery 0,
reservation. Place Of Performance Where
the land in dispute lies and the contract Of
lease is to be performed in the said Indian
country or reservation. the relation of land.
lord and tenant cannot legally exist.
8. ActioA on illegal contract. Where IN
action rests altogether upon an illegal con.
tract the action must fail.
10. Section 23l9, Rev. Stau. q. S. tn,
decision of the court in this case has M
barring upon the provisions of section 23ls
OF the United States revised statutes.
Appeal by the defendants from the judg
ment of the district court of Lawrenc,
county.
Trip & Boyles for appellants, and Gam
BILE Bros. for respondent.
Chief Justice Shannon. after stating III
case, delivered the opinion of the court, a
follows:
In his complaint the plaintiff alleges
mere possession, without any legal interes
and without showing any right of posses
sion, but relies solely upon an alleged rela
ton Of landlord and tenant. Hesets up ,
written contract dated the oath day O
August. 1876, At Deadwood, By which h,
leased to the assignors of the deSsndsnts !,
part of q lot of ground in said city, for ,
term of eight months. The lease is:4ad,
a part Of the bill Of exceptions, and shows ,
rent Of twenty-five dollars per month"; pay
able in advance. and an agfeeneut dat .
the expiration If the lesse the plsintif
should pay the actual vafde Of improve
ments made upon the lot
Further lllegattons in the CONSTANT are
Of the expiration of the term on the 25tl
dsyof April, 1877, Of . holdihlka over, ana
Of : notice TO quitsS Ind . refusal. esThs relic
demanded is fof ihs possessi6h- and 10
damages for the unlawful Withholding an,
costs.
The answer of the defendants, withou
dispuins the execution of the written con
tract, denies any ownershipin the plaintiff
and that She WI eveE:ss At ys.liml
lawfully possessed Of the premises. I
contaIi1ssatAe further ayStment, that til,
MISUNDERSTANDING possession Of the pre-
mises q In date of the contract, au9sFhe,
the Ilsin1td pretended Ssio be poASsse,
thereof ssy6syitt: onRthe 24tS,day Of. August
1876, wakSSs against plaintiff, in the Siou.
IndianG: Ind not ID the plGntif.
And mdrsoveESSNhat th4spremises on III
24th datssof August, 1Sf2 we're lands I
which the indian title had-hot been extiu
guishEdTr9nd were within an Ind6l1<l iese,
vatio6s,G1so remained until the Id d.,
of.FdkEukry, 1877C whensthey bseane /
portion Of sshe public .lanta Of thu, lupite,
StateS and We. epepen to lawful settlemen
'' i. ssTssis 5 -. dssi bill af.ioep.isa. til.
after thsSdosing If the .estimony, the de
fendah.a.zN their counseiS.asked thescou,
to injsuAts the jury, among other tkinSs, 4
follows:
The jury arc instructed that prior
" acquired to the ground in controversy b
I" plaintiff, nor could b make any Lawful
llssse Of the same; hsjarv ~ therefor
"ipstructed 10 find i verdict fr defend
"sant1!1s s.a5 G. s.
ThSdistrict court refsssd ID give such in
Ns,,cloh. and this In ALTERED m error. m