Omaha daily bee., 1907-01-06
LAND RIGHT OF INDIAN WIFE
Woman May Hold Allotment Despite Trust
Patent to Der Husband.
IMPORTANT RULING BY JUDGE TRlEBER
Arkansas Jurist Decides Cora Con-
way Has Legal Right 20 Quar-
ter Section of Land
She Took Up.

A memorandum opinion was received
Saturday morning in the United States
circuit court from Judge Trleber in the
care of Cora Conway against the United
States. David Sherman and Dora Sherman,
Ponca Indians. The decision holds in eff
feet that an Indian woman Of lawful age,
who prior to her marriage may have taken
up an allotment Of land, is entitled to hold
possession Of the same in her own name
after marriage and that the issue of
trust patent to her husband the head OF
a family including her original holding with
her husbands does not ALLEVIATE her right in
severalty and in case of divorce she is en-
titled to recover her separate allotment
The case is one that involves many SINH
lar questions relating to Indian land mat
tiers and the decision is a most important
one for this reason.
Cora Conway in July, 1889, as an unmar-
ried Ponca Indian selected an allotment of
100 acres of land under the allotment laws
which selection was approved by the Interior
department David Sherman, also a
Ponca Indian, took an allotment of 100
acres about the same time. Cora Conway
and David Sherman were married June
| 10, 1890, and lived as man and wife until
| November. 1897. They went to live with
the parents of Sherman The allotments
was agreed by the complainant and de-
PENDANT to select other allotments nearer
! together in lieu of their first selections,
and have their first selections cancelled.
| In October, 1890, the new selections thus
made were approved by the secretary Of the
| Interior and 1t was wrongfully made to
| appear that Sherman the head of a
| family had been allotted the two parcels of
land
Trust Patent to sherman.
| May 26. 1891, a trust patent was issued
! to David Sherman conveying the two tracts
| to him, which the complainant says was
erroneous, but which should have been
much separately, as she understood one
half of the land belonged to her and one
half to Sherman, and at the end OF the
twenty-five year period one-half Of the
land would belong to each. No effort was
made to have the tract patent corrected,
as the complainant understood it to be
nearly a preliminary paper.
| In 1897 the complainant received a divorce
from the defendant on the grounds OF
drunkenness and cruelty, and was awarded
the custody of their three minor children.
Since the divorce Sherman has excluded
her from the land or any participation In
it's profits or proceeds Sherman has also
remarked to one Dora Sherman, and one
child has been born or that marriage. Ihe
| complainant has repeatedly asked the De-
partment Of the Interior TO correct the trust
patent so as to include the right of the
complainant to participate in the control
rental, profits and proceeds of the land,
which have been refused.
The defendants have filed demurrer to
the bill Of the complainant and II is upon
this demurrer that the decision of Judge
Trieber is based.
| Statement by Court.
The decision says:
| The complainant having been divorced
from her husband without fault of her
own, but solely on account of his faults,
she is equitably entitled to some share OF
the property for the support of herself and
children, fruits of her marriage with Sher-
man. Numerous decisions and cases are
then cited in the case in point, The con-
clusion reached is that upon the proclama-
the grant to each of the Indians became
com plete, and the complainant then
being an unmarried adult over is years Of
age, she became entitled to 100 acres of
land, to be allotted to her thereafter.
The fact that she married the defendant
(Sherman) thereafter and before the actual
allotment and issuance of the trust patent,
did not deprive her of the right -'hich
became vested in her when the pI- vf1ts
proclamation was issued, and the take
Of conveying the two tracts selected by
them separately to the defendant (Sher-
mani as the head Of a family, especially in
view OF the fact that the complainant
ownership to the undivided half thereof
was recognized by the defendant Sherman,
could not AFFECT her rights against him.
For these reasons she is entitled to the
/, | relief prayed for and the demurrer to the
amended bill should be dismissed.