The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-05-29
Construction of
Seminole Treaty
of 1897

gee which was decided yesterday il
an opinion by Chelf Justice Williams
IS perhaps the most important of tn,
one hundred opinions handed down b,
The state supreme court since It's or
lganization.
Ihe case Involves millions of dol
lars IL passing upcn the question o
whether the deeds to Seminole In
dian lands TO which no patents were
issued We { valid after the remova
Of the restrictions The opinion is q
construction on the Seminole Treaty
I of 1887, and by reason OF the fact thai
! the majority of the other treaties oi
the Five Civilized tribes are drawr
| similar the question win also apply tC
similar cases those nations. II Is
estimated by persons who are familiar
witl Indian affairs that $5.O000
worth of property Is involved In the
case Chief Justice Williams has spent
much time in the preparation of this
opinion. The opinion in full,i- as fol
lows.
IN THE SUPREME COURT or TIL
STATE OF OKLAHOMA .... ..
No 769.
T. ], Godfrey Plaintiff in Error
VS..
Iowa Land and Trust Company, De
fendant in Error.
(Syllaous By the Coprt.)
A citizen of the Seminole nation
not of Indian blood after selecting
his allotment and receiving his Ger
tifjcate OF allotment from the chair
man of the Commission to the fiy,
ciyillzA tribes, as provided for by
the agreement OF The i6 day Of Decem
Der, a. d., 1897 on the part of the
Seminole tribe Of ludians with tn,
United States ratified by an act Of
CsRgrcss - the lst day of July, A
d.. 1898, after the removal of re
strictions on the alienation of allotted
land by the members of said tribe
by act OF Congress of April D. 1904
when no patent has been issued or de
livcred to such all ttee or citizen
may execute deed or conveyance
70 that part OF his or her allotment not
designated by him or her as his OF
hor homestead.
error from The United states Court
for tie Western District Of the IN
dian Territory, Muskogeo.
II ln. VIM. r. Lawrence. Trial Judge
Gihsou & Ramsey. Attorneys for
Plain.i in Error
Thomas &Demeulcs, Attorneys foI
Defenda' 20 Error
STATEMENT or FACTS.
On the 10th day of April a. D.
1906, the plaintiff in error, as plaintin
IN the court bel W. filed first amended
complaint against the defendant in er
eor the defendant in said court seek
ing to have certain deed declared
a mortgage Reference be-ein will be
made to the parties as they appeared
IN the court below
Plaintiff as a resident of the State
of Kansas, alleged that the defendant
was a corporation organized under
the laws IN force in tho Indian Ter
story. with prlncipai place of bust
n~ss at Nv ogee. anl for cause OF
ton stated that on April 30, 1906
Ae bought from no Robert James O
certain described tract Of land sit
uated nthe Seminole nation. Rebecca
James. The wife of said grantor, join
ing with him in said deed In execut
ing and delivering a deed with coven
ants OF general warranty conveying
TO plaintiff sail land, which said deed
was filed for record in the proper re-
cording district wherein the land was
situatcd. to-wit, at Wewoka A copy
of said deed N attached g. said com
paint and is hl proper form and con
tains fun and complete covenants OF
warranty in fee simple
Said Robert Names was an enroll
ed citizen Of the Seminole nation. moi
of Indian blood. Xnd as such allottet
reeaiyd from the Chairman Of the com
mission of the five civilized tribes
certificates of allotment one bearinl
date OF June 10th 1901, and the other
June 2Sth 1902. Describing the land in
controversy Said certificates were
attached to said complaint and identi
iied as proper exhibits He further
alleges mat prior TO the execution
and delivery to him 81 said deed by
the grantnr. that aaid Robert James
conveyed said lard TO the defendant
The iowa Land & Trust Company
b., an instrument OF writing in the
shape and form of a deed for the con
sderaiion of $3.50, and that said in-
sirument bears date Of November
2ni. 1904 and was executed and De
iiYeied by said grantor the said de
fendaut ior the purpose of securing
iuaiii Plaintiff attaches a copy of said
deed 10 said complain; as part there
Of an& identified same al an exhihii
alleging that said deed was for thu
purpose Of securing borrowed money
and being s. understood At the time
by an PARTIES thereto. and was intend
ed for the purpose Of securing the pay
ment o Ia note egidencing a debt fol
such borrowed money and that wheI
the plaintih become the purchaser o
said land on April 10 1905, he pur
chased same from said grantor witl
the understanding that said instru
menl Ia favor so The defendants wal