The daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Ind. Ter. [Okla.]) 1898-1902, 1899-03-24

have not been injured. Tbs de-
fendant's property has nos been
taken nor disposed Of He, of
course, alleges that it is his, bot
under the law it is not his Ii is
the property of the Cherokee ma
ton, and was sold as the property
of the Cherokee nation. Now if
there is anything wrong about
that sale the Cherokee nation
can complain of it. The intrud-
er cannot. The difference is
between an outsider taking excep-
tions to the error and the party in
iured That proposition was dis
tinctly affirmed in the case report
ed ia Vol. lis Z. s. Reports, page
40S, and il is this. | will read it
again: '.To entitle party to re-
lief against q patent Of the govern
ment. be must show a better right
to the land than the .patentee, such
as in law should have been re-
sDected by the officers of the land
department and being respected,
would have given him the patent.
Its not sufficient to show that the
pateDtee ought not have received
the patent. 1t must affirmatively
appear that the claimant was en-
titled to it, and that, in conse-
quence of erroneous rulings Of
those officers on the facts existing,
it was denied to him.
This defendent makes no valid
showing of any right on his part
to these improvements. The Law
has utterly wiped out his founda-
tion-taken. it from under him and
leaves him as naked trespasser,
and leaves what he claims to be
his property, as the property Of
the Cherokee nation. The Chero-
kee nation undertakes to sell there
inproyeme ents, through its officers,
to one Of its citizens. What right
has the defendant to qnestion-the
validity Of the acts of the officers
Of the Cherokee nation2 1t does
not affect him under the theory
that the court holds. Heis not an
Interested party. II there is any
thing wrong the Cherokee nation
and this plaintiff must settle that
This defendant, whose property
was not sold, cannot contest the
validity of these proceedings.
Counsel have stated, however, that
this certificate given by the sheri #
is not a patent, nor analogous to
patent. A patent to land is an i'm
strument issuing from the govern
ment granting to a person
a. portion Of its domain and
the right to the exclusive use
thereof. The Cherokee nation
Owned these improvements tt
proceeded to divest itself of the
Ownership Of these Improvements.
1t might have added to this act,
but it would not have given il any
more validity, that the sheriff
should report the facts to the Sec
rstary of the nation who should
tnereupon issue a patent to this
land. The effect would have been
the same.
In the Arkansas case, to which
attention was called, the question
was as to whether a mere certifi-
cate of the land officer to a home
steader entitled him to maintain
ejectment, The court in that case
held that it was. The mere cer-
tificate Of the land Office that a
person had located upon piece of
public land as a homestead, but
who was not entitled to patent
for FIVE years afterwards, certifi-
cate that he had located it, was
sufficient to lentitIe him to main
tain an action of ejectment. That
was held in the case Of Brumfnett
vi. Pearle, SO Arkansas Reports,
page 472. In the case at bar there
was certificate issued that might
have been made the basis of the
issuance by the nation Of a patent, |
giving to this plaintiff the right, |
tile and interest of the Cherokee
nation to the improvements in |
question. The sale BY the sberiff |
a sfs means Pr which ths Cher:
okss ralio1 8ss 1fTe4gidE ifseII IL