Source: https://openjurist.org/274/us/544
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 21:45:49+00:00

Document:
This controversy concerns title to lands allotted after her death to Emma Patterson, a Choctaw Indian. Once within the Southern judicial district of Indian Territory, they are now in Murray, Stephens, and Carter counties, Oklahoma. By original complaint presented to the Murray county district court, February 21, 1920, respondents here-William M. Patterson, surviving husband of Mrs. Patterson, and their five children-alleged that, although petitioner, U. Sherman Joines, had held actual and peaceful possession of the lands since July 5, 1907, the legal title thereto was in them, and they asked an appropriate decree establishing their rights.
Mrs. Patterson, resident of the Central judicial district, Indian Territory, died there May 14, 1906, leaving five minor children, born, respectively, 1894, 1897, 1900, 1903, and 1905. Her surviving husband, father of these children and a white man, was appointed guardian for them by the United States Court, Central District, sitting at Durant (now in Bryan county, Oklahoma). Thereafter, April 24, 1907, he petitioned the United States Court for the Southern District, sitting at Ardmore (now in Carter county, Oklahoma), to sell the lands. May 2, 1907, that court authorized the sale, and on the following October 8 the guardian filed his report, showing sale of them at public outcry July 5, 1907, for $2,000 to U. Sherman Joines, petitioner here, the highest bidder. He also stated that, acting as their guardian, he had conveyed to Joines all interest of the minors in the lands.
October 5, 1907, purporting to act as guardian, Patterson undertook by deed to convey to Joines all the minors' interest in the lands. Since then Joines had held open and adverse possession.
The William M. Patterson acquired a life estate by curtesy in the lands, which had been barred by the seven-year statute of limitations in force within Indian Territory October 5, 1907.
That by putting Joines into possession of the lands, and allowing him to retain this for 14 years without complaint, Patterson estopped himself from asserting any claim thereto.
That the United States Court for the Southern District of Indian Territory had jurisdiction to authorize sale by the guardian of the minor's interest, and confirmation thereof by the county court, Carter county, Oklahoma, was not void.
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma first upheld the trial court; but, after a rehearing, it disapproved all the abovestated conclusions, reversed the judgment, and directed final decree for respondents here. Patterson v. Joines, 114 Okl. 9, 244 P. 585.
The Supreme Court accepted and acted upon at least two conclusions which we think are erroneous: (1) That the proceeding in the United States Court at Ard more to sell the lands was merely ancillary to the main guardianship matter at Durant, in the Central district, and therefore should have been transferred to Bryan, not to Carter, county. (2) That the Arkansas seven-year statute of limitations-section 4471, Mansfield's Digest-did not commence to run against William M. Patterson and in favor of Joines when the latter took possession, since no interest passed to him; the court proceedings and the guardian's deed being wholly insufficient to give even color of title. These conclusions were based upon questions of federal law wrongly determined. They were acted upon by the court below. We must therefore reverse its judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings. See Whitehead v. Galloway, 249 U. S. 79, 39 S. Ct. 206, 63 L. Ed. 490.
Section 30, Act of May 2, 1890, c. 182, 26 Stat. 81, 94, as amended by the Act of March 1, 1895, c. 145, 28 Stat. 693, divided Indian Territory into three judicial districts-Northern, Certral, and Southern-and defined their limits. Section 31 extended over it certain general laws of Arkansas as published in Mansfield's Digest. Among these were chapters 20, 49, 73, and 97, relating, respectively, to the common and statute law of England, descent and distribution, guardians, curators and wards, and limitations.
When extended over Indian Territory, the specified laws of Arkansas Carried the settled constructions placed upon them by courts of that state. So construed, they became, in effect, laws of the United States as though originally enacted by Congress for government of the territory. Willis v. Eastern Trust & Banking Co., 169 U. S. 295, 307, 18 S. Ct. 347, 42 L. Ed. 752; James v. Appel, 192 U. S. 129, 135, 24 S. Ct. 222, 48 L. Ed. 377; Gidney v. Chappel, 241 U. S. 99, 102, 36 S. Ct. 492, 60 L. Ed. 910. See also Byrd v. State, 99 Okl. 165, 226 P. 362.
'Sec. 19. That the courts of original jurisdiction of such state shall be deemed to be the successor of all courts of original jurisdiction of said territories and as such shall take and retain custody of all records, dockets, journals, and files of such courts except in causes transferred therefrom, as herein provided; the files and papers in such transferred cases shall be transferred to the proper United States circuit or district court, together with a transcript of all book entries to complete the record in such particular case so transferred.
'Section 1 ('Schedule'). No existing rights, actions, suits, proceedings, contracts, or claims shall be affected by the change in the forms of government, but all shall continue as if no change in the forms of government had taken place. And all processes which may have been issued previous to the admission of the state into the Union under the authority of the territory of Oklahoma or under the authority of the laws in force in the Indian Territory shall be as valid as if issued in the name of the state.
And see MaHarry v. Eatman, 29 Okl. 46, 53, 116 P. 935.
Under the statute thus construed, the court for the Southern judicial district, Indian Territory, at Ardmore, had jurisdiction of the guardian's petition to sell. The cause there was not merely ancillary to the original guardian proceeding in the Central district, wherein Patterson was appointed. It had the status of an independent suit.
The Enabling Act directed that causes pending in the United States Courts for Indian Territory should be proceeded with and determined by the successor courts of Oklahoma. As we understand the opinion below, the court recognized that, if the guardian's suit for sale, begun at Ardmore, was an original and independent one, transfer of it to the Carter county court for further action was proper. We think it was an original proceeding, and therefore was transferred to the proper court for further action according to the rights of the parties. See Dewalt v. Cline, 35 Okl. 197, 128 P. 121, and Bailey v. Jones, 96 Okl. 56, 220 P. 345.
Under the settled construction given to the seven-year statute of limitations by the courts of Arkansas, it began to run against Patterson when Joines took possession. 'So long as a man is in possession of land, claiming title, however wrongfully, and with whatever degree of knowledge that he had no right, so long the real owner is out of possession, in a constructive as well as an actual sense. It is of the nature of the statute of limitation, when applied to civil actions, in effect, to mature a wrong into a right, by cutting off the remedy. To warrant its application in ejectment, the books require color of title, by deed or other documental semblance of right in the defendant, only when the defense is founded on a constructive adverse possession. But neither a deed nor any equivalent muniment is necessary, where the possession is indicated by actual occupation, and any other evidence of an adverse claim exists. The muniment is but one circumstance by which to make out an adverse possession.' Ferguson v. Peden, 33 Ark. 150, 155; Jacks v. Chaffin et al. (1879) 34 Ark. 534, 541; Logan et al. v. Jelks, 34 Ark. 547, 549.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma seems definitely to have approved the doctrine that rights of action arising in Indian Territory prior to statehood remained subject to the Arkansas statute of limitations. Patterson v. Rousney, 58 Okl. 185, 202, 159 P. 636; Davis v. Foley, 60 Okl. 87, 88, 159 P. 646. And see U. S. Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 49 Okl. 398, 408, 153 P. 195; Sandlin et al. v. Barker, 95 Okl. 113, 117, 218 P. 519.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.