The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-05-16
COURT DECISION
INVOLVES MILLIONS
lcontInued flom paee b

try reciting the facts. by mea1s OF
which. IN due tune, he receives
patent
The contract Of purchase Us complete
when the certificate OF entry is cNccui- 7
ed and delivered. and thereafter The (
land ceases 10 be q part OF the public I
domain. The government agrees iu
make proper conveyance ass soon as u (
can and la the meantime holds the /
naked legal Zee in trust for the pur
chaser who has The equitable title AS
the patent emanates directly from the
president. it necessarily happens that
years elapse, before la the regular
icourse of business In The general land
iOtce. u can issne and If The right
TO tax was IA abeyance during this
time e would work q great hardship
TO The state. for thc purchaser, as soon
as he gets his certificate oi entry. rs
protected in his proprietary inlem5l
can tale possession, and make lasting
and valuable Improvements. which il
would be dincDit to separate from ne
free hold f0H the purpose Of TAXA
tion."
This question was fully considered
by this courI ia Carroll v. Stafford, B
How $50, and the views We have pre-
tANt
lthat case
Bun It Is insisted that there Is
difference between a casn aud q do
ination entry that the one maybe com
plete when the money is paid but the
Iother is not perfected until il IS con
frmed by the general land office ana
the patent issued
That congress has The entire con.
troll of the public lands can dispose of
them for money or donate them Go IN
ldiyiduals on classes OF persons caii
not be quegtioned. ll the law on the
subject Is complied with. and the en-.
try conforms TO it. 81 Is difilcnl to see
why the right to tax does not attach
as Wen to the donation as TO the cash
. entry Ia either case when the entry
is mode and certificate given. The par
J ticular land is seggreeated from the
? mass Of public lands. and becomes
lprivate property Ia the one case, the
ienirF is complete when the money is
paid In the other when lhe required
proofs are furnisned. ln neither can
the patent be Withheld il tie original
. lentry was lawful
, In the case OF Lessee OF French, ct
1 lux. v spencer p How 239 Mr. Jus.
tice Catron speaking for the court
said Whether rhe patent related
. back In support Of Spencers deed is
y not a new question IN this court is
arose i'm the case OF i-andes v. Brant.
GO How 1922, where ID was held that
i, a patent issued in 1S45 10 Claymor-
/, gan and his heirs by which the heirs
took the legal title, related back and
linared to the protection OF a lille
. founded on sheriI's sale OF Clavmor
: gan's equitable interest made iu
1905 fhere as here, the contest was
l. between the grantees heirs aud ihc
purchaser OF the incipient title The
court holding that when the patent
ISSUED, il related 10 the inception of
title. and must be taken. as between
l. tie parties 20 the suit to bear date
8 with the commencement of titlen
furthermore warrants the title against
y himself and his heirs Under This
"a deed the defendant holds possession
"The lessons OF The plaintm took Z
deed from Pet-chfcos heirs. dated n
e 1855, on the assumption that their an
q cestOr's deed was void. having die.
in 1898 before the lands We're sur
vcyod or the reserved sections Sc
Is lected And on the trial below thl
tcourt was asked TO instruct the iuri
that potchi-co held no interest under
"a the treaty in the lands Ia question
,up 10 the time OF his death. hat wa,
assignabe. he having died before th,
II location of the land, and before To-
patents issued
"This instruction The court refuse,
"A 10 give; but. on the contrary. charge.
the jury that the description Of th,
land 10 the deed from Petchi-co g
n lCoquillard and Colerick from Cole
rick 10 CoduilIard and from CoQuillar,
ito Wilson are sufficient 10 idenuf
ID the iand thereb yintended 10 be con
n. yeyed as the same two sections o
land which are In CONTROVERSY Ga lhi
suit and which are described in tn
se patents which have hoeu read la fh
A. levidence 'fhe only qucs
ia tion presented by The record that w
feel ourselves called ON 90 decide )
whether pet-chtcos deed Of Fehruar
.a 1888 vested his title ia CoQuillard AMI
y tColerick
"The pouawatomie nation was IN
luwUer of the possessorY right of th
cnnntry ceded and an the subject
of the nation were Joint owners OF 1
The reseryees took by the treaty q
ar lrectly from the nation, the India
M title. and this was the right To o,
50 lcupy use and enjoy tha lands, )
OF common with the United States unt
ed lpGriiti0n was made in tie maunc
is prescribed The treaty itself conFcr
C. Tea the reserved sectigrs into lndlriai
Ian propertr. The Indians as naiio
reserved 40 interest in the terior
~ coded but as part of the consider
= ton f0f lie ceEsion, certain individual
3 oi the nation had cmiererd ON ihei
y. lnortions % the land 90 which th
United states title was either eddie
Tor promised 10 be added and 10 ma
et ters NOT which. Tor the purpose Of th
ng 'cdniroVorsy for possession
as "The United states held Ire uli
Jpate ule, charged with the right 1
lund'st0rbed occupancy and perpeN'
oossession. Ia the indian nation VII
nv ,ihe exclusive power in the eoyefnmei
~ acquiring the right Johnson
Mcintosh. Wheat Coz; Comet
Winton Yergers r. lt1.
"AlthOugh the government alone az
t.. purchase lands from aa .ndian na'le
ns lii does not follow thot when the rleh
fof the nation are eXtinEashed. an