Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/481/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:24:10+00:00

Document:
1. The Act of Congress of February 18, 1888, and the amending Act of February 13, 1889, authorizing a railroad company to locate and construct a railroad across a portion of the Indian Territory then still held in trust for the Creek Indians, but which was afterwards acquired from them by the United States and opened to settlement, did not make a grant in praesenti of a right of way, but granted only a franchise, and authorized a taking of land only upon compensation secured or made. Pp. 297 U. S. 489, 297 U. S. 494.
2. Subsequent related legislation examined, and found not to require a different conclusion. P. 297 U. S. 491.
3. In view of the nature of the title of the Indians, an intention to grant or impose a servitude upon their lands without compensation to them cannot be imputed to Congress. P. 297 U. S. 493.
4. Even if it be assumed that the Act of 1888 granted the railroad a base or limited fee, title nevertheless could not have vested until plats of the location of the line were filed with the Secretary of the Interior for his approval, as required by the Act, and therefore the mere staking of a location of a proposed line was ineffectual to prevent the acquisition of superior rights by settlers and occupants under the homestead and townsite laws. P. 297 U. S. 494.
5. The provisions made by 43 U.S.C. 912 for transfer of title of abandoned railroad lands relate to such lands as were granted to the railroad by the United States, and do not apply to land which was conveyed to the railroad, subject to reverter, by an entryman who acquired title under the public land laws. P. 297 U. S. 495.
6. Whether a habendum clause in a private deed to a railroad operated to revest title in the grantor's heirs upon abandonment of the railroad held a question not of federal, but of state, law, to be decided by the state court. P. 297 U. S. 495.
172 Okla. 182; 44 P.2d 135, reversed.
court in favor of the city in two cases involving title to lands.
These were actions in ejectment tried in a state court. The petitioners in No. 335 sued as the heirs of Naoma Noble, the petitioners in No. 336 as the heirs of Robert W. Higgins. Title to a town lot and a portion of another parcel of land located in the respondent city was in dispute.
States did not sell any portion of the ceded area to Indians or permit white settlement in the region of Oklahoma City, and the land remained vacant.
The President, on January 19, 1889, negotiated a treaty with the Creeks [Footnote 6] by which they ceded to the United States full and complete title to the entire western half of their lands, thus freeing the area from the trust under which it had theretofore been held. This treaty was subject to ratification by the council of the tribe and by Congress. It was confirmed by the former January 31, 1889.
"to the benefit of or cause to vest in any railroad company any right, title, or interest whatever in or to any of said lands . . . and all grants or pretended grants of said lands or any interest or right therein now existing in or on behalf of any railroad company, except rights of way and depot grounds,"
were declared forfeited for breach of condition.
townsite on the west, and undertook to file a homestead entry thereon.
July 13, 1889, the railway company filed with the Secretary of the Interior a map of definite location of its line as staked out through Oklahoma City. The road ran diagonally through the town site quarter-section, included the whole of the Noble lot, and traversed diagonally Higgins' adjoining quarter-section.
"No part of the land embraced within the Territory hereby created shall inure to the use or benefit of any railroad corporation, except the rights of way and land for stations heretofore granted to certain railroad corporations. Nor shall any provision of this act or any act of any officer of the United States, done or performed under the provisions of this act or otherwise, invest any corporation owning or operating any railroad in the Indian Territory, or Territory created by this act, with any land or right to any land in either of said Territories, and this act shall not apply to or affect any land which, upon any condition on becoming a part of the public domain, would inure to the benefit of, or become the property of, any railroad corporation."
without exception, limitation, or reservation. In due time, the trustees issued their deeds for the various lots, including the Noble tract.
"Being intended for the use and occupation of said party [grantee], its successors and assigns, as and for its right of way for the constructing, operation, and maintenance of its railroad and business at or upon the land hereby released and quit-claimed: Provided, that, in case of abandonment of said premises by said second party, its successors, or assigns for the purposes above-mentioned, the same shall revert to the grantors, their heirs, or assigns."
"To have and to hold the same by the said Choctaw, Oklahoma, and Gulf Railroad Company, together with all and singular the rights, privileges, and appurtenances thereunto belonging and all the rights and privileges which said company is authorized to have, hold, and exercise under and by virtue of the Act of Congress granting the Choctaw Coal and Railway Company a right of way through the Indian Territory, approved February 18th, 1888, and subsequent Acts of Congress amending and extending said Act, together with all the rights and privileges granted unto said Choctaw, Oklahoma, and Gulf Railroad Company by an Act of Congress approved August 24th, 1894, and the Act of Congress approved April 24th, 1896, and unto its successors, and assigns forever."
of the petitioners was a party to this proceeding. The city took possession, and has since held the strip. These suits were filed shortly thereafter. Petitioners asserted that the Act of February 18, 1888, and the amending Act of February 13, 1889, made no grant in praesenti of a right of way but merely authorized the company to acquire one by purchase or condemnation; that these statutes applied only to Indian country and not to the public domain, and that, on February 13, 1889, the land in question was Creek Indian land and the only title the company acquired to its right of way, so far as the tracts in controversy are concerned, was that conveyed by the deeds of petitioners' ancestors under both of which the title, on abandonment for railroad purposes, reverted to their heirs and assigns. The defense to this claim was that the acts presently invested the railway with title to the right of way subsequently located, obtained, and used, which, upon abandonment of the use, reverted to the United States and was, by the Act of March 8, 1922, conveyed to the respondent.
company endured only so long as the land was devoted to railroad use, with a right of reverter, either vested in the Creek Tribe and conveyed to the United States by the cession effective March 1, 1889, or vested directly in the United States, and the right of reverter passed from the United States by patent to the petitioners' ancestors, and from them, by deed and inheritance, to the respective petitioners. Upon the extinguishment of the railroad's estate by abandonment, full title, so they claimed, reverted to them. They alleged the Act of March 8, 1922, does not apply in the circumstances, and, if held applicable, is unconstitutional as depriving them of property without due process.
The trial court entered judgments in favor of the city, and, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma consolidated the cases for hearing and affirmed the judgments. [Footnote 14] In their applications for certiorari, the petitioners asserted that the state court's construction of the acts of 1888 and 1889 conflicts with the decision of a federal court in respect of an act identical in terms, [Footnote 15] and stressed the importance of a final adjudication as affecting not only their titles, but many others in Oklahoma City the subject of threatened suits in state and federal courts. On this showing, the writ was granted.
"After the filing of said maps, no claim for a subsequent settlement and improvement upon the right of way shown by said maps shall be valid as against said company."
"The right of way herein and hereby granted shall not be assigned or transferred in any form whatever prior to the construction and completion of the road."
Except for the words just quoted from § 13 upon which respondent relies, the act plainly grants an authority or a franchise, rather than physical property. The expression used in that section is not sufficient to enlarge the limited scope of the act disclosed by the enacting sections.
The Act of 1888, considered in its entirety, evinces the intent that the company is to compensate for all lands taken for its use, whether those of individual allottees or of the tribe. No provision for compensation to white settlers was made, because, at the date of the passage of the statutes, none were permitted within the area to be traversed by the railroad. The acts in question were construed by Assistant Attorney General (now MR. JUSTICE) VAN DEVANTER, in an opinion rendered to the Department of the Interior in 1898, [Footnote 18] as not making grants in praesenti, but conferring only the right to locate a railroad and take the necessary land upon making just compensation to its owners or those having an inchoate right of ownership. A similar conclusion was announced by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [Footnote 19] in respect of the act authorizing the building of the Fort Smith & Western Railroad, [Footnote 20] which is identical with that under review except for the name of the company and the termini of the projected railroad.
"And, for such purpose, the said company shall have the right to take and occupy the right of way and depot grounds heretofore granted to it by said Acts."
We think, in the light of the clear provisions of the original authorization, no inference favorable to the respondent's contention is to be drawn from this phrase in the extending act.
"That it shall and may be lawful for such new corporation to construct and operate branches from its said railroad and for such purpose to take and use rights of way . . . upon making compensation therefor as provided in the case of taking land for its main line."
merely intended to preserve the status quo, and does not aid in the construction of previous legislation respecting the rights of railroads in the territory.
Were the act of 1888 of doubtful import, the conditions existing when it and the amending act of 1889 were adopted would be conclusive of the legislative intent. The main line authorized by the first act ran for the greater portion through the lands of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians. The title of these tribes was substantially similar to that of the Creeks, and while, in the treaty by which their title was confirmed, there was provision that rights of way for railroads might be granted through their territory, the condition was added that full compensation should be made for any property taken or destroyed in the construction of any such road. The branch line authorized by the act of 1889 extended westward through the eastern portion of the Creek lands which was unaffected by the treaty of 1866. The treaty of 1856 with this tribe contained a provision similar to that found in the Choctaw Treaty securing compensation for lands taken for railroad rights of way. The branch line also was to traverse the western portion of the Creek Nation's territory, but, at the time the branch was authorized (February 13, 1889), that area was not public land of the United States, and was held in trust for the settlement of other Indians. The restriction was not removed until March 1, 1889, at which time these lands were declared to be part of the public domain and intended for white settlement.
Both the original and the amending act contemplated that the right of way would run through lands owned by Indian tribes or claimed by Indian allottees and none other. In view of the nature of the title of the Indians, we cannot impute to the Congress a purpose by the Act of 1888 to grant any portion of the lands to the company or to impose a servitude without compensation.
For these reasons, we are unable to agree with the construction of the act by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in the present case and in earlier decisions. [Footnote 24] We hold the legislation granted a franchise, authorized a taking upon compensation secured or made, and was not a grant of land.
intended by the Act of 1888. The petitioners entered upon their tracts April 22, 1889. The company's map was not filed with the Secretary of the Interior until July 13th of the same year. Whatever the quality of the statutory grant to the railroad company, its rights had their inception after the assertion of, and were inferior to, those of the petitioners' ancestors.
Third. It follows from what has been said that the railroad derived title to the Noble lot by the deed of Naoma and George Noble of March 28, 1891. As no question is made but that the reverter clause in that deed became operative upon abandonment of the line, the Noble title is superior to that of the respondent. It is equally true that, when Higgins made his deed to the railroad company in 1898, he had good title to the premises conveyed, and, by that conveyance, the railroad obtained whatever estate it had. The petitioners insist that the habendum clause in the deed operated to clothe them with full title on abandonment of the right of way. They say that the Supreme Court of Oklahoma so held. The opinion seems to proceed on this assumption, but, in the view the court took, a decision of the question was unnecessary, and we find no direct ruling upon the point. We express no opinion as to the effect of the habendum clause, since this is a question of state law, and appropriately may be decided by the state court.
The grounds stated for our decision make it unnecessary to consider or to decide the other questions raised by the petitioners. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma must be reversed, and the causes remanded to that Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
* Together with No. 336, Higgins et al. v. Oklahoma City. Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Stat. 366; 7 Stat. 417; 11 Stat. 699.
Vol. 4 of Indian Deeds, in the Office of Indian Affairs, pp. 446, 447.
June 14, 1866, 14 Stat. 785.
See Treaty of June 22, 1855, 11 Stat. 611.
25 Stat. 757, 759, § 2.
25 Stat. 980, 1004, 1005, § 12.
26 Stat. 81, 89, 91.
The railway was reorganized as Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company, and the reorganized company given the same rights as its predecessor. 28 Stat. 502; 29 Stat. 98. At the time of the abandonment, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company was operating the line in question under a lease for 999 years.
"Whenever public lands of the United States have been or may be granted to any railroad company for use as a right of way for its railroad or as sites for railroad structures of any kind, and use and occupancy of said lands for such purposes has ceased or shall hereafter cease, whether by forfeiture or by abandonment by said railroad company declared or decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction or by Act of Congress, then and thereupon, all right, title, interest, and estate of the United States in said lands shall, except such part thereof as may be embraced in a public highway legally established within one year after the date of said decree or forfeiture or abandonment, be transferred to and vested in any person, firm, or corporation, assigns, or successors in title and interest to whom or to which title of the United States may have been or may be granted, conveying or purporting to convey the whole of the legal subdivision or subdivisions traversed or occupied by such railroad or railroad structures of any kind as aforesaid, except lands within a municipality the title to which, upon forfeiture or abandonment, as herein provided, shall vest in such municipality, and this by virtue of the patent thereto and without the necessity of any other or further conveyance or assurance of any kind or nature whatsoever."
172 Okl. 182, 44 P.2d 135.
United States v. Ft. Smith & Western Railroad Co., 195 F. 211, 214.
Ruddy v. Rossi, 248 U. S. 104, 248 U. S. 106.
See, e.g., Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Kansas Pacific Ry. Co., 97 U. S. 491; Railroad Co. v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 426; United States v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 146 U. S. 570; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267; United States v. Michigan, 190 U. S. 379. The general railroad act of 1875(18 Stat. 482) also grants a right of way in praesenti: Jamestown & Northern R. Co. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 125; Stalker v. Oregon S.L. R. Co., 225 U. S. 142.
27 Land Office Decisions, 414.
United States v. Ft. Smith & Western R. Co., 195 F. 211, 214.
28 Stat. 502, 503. And see § 2 of the Act of April 24, 1896, 29 Stat. 98; § 2 of the Act of March 28, 1900, 31 Stat. 52.
United States v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co., 3 Okl. 404, 41 P. 729; Churchill v. Choctaw Ry. Co., 4 Okl. 462, 46 P. 503.
Chapter 152, 18 Stat. 482; 43 U.S.C. §§ 934-939. See Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. Stringham, 239 U. S. 44, 239 U. S. 47, and cases cited.
Minneapolis, ST.P. & S.S.M. Ry. Co. v. Doughty, 208 U. S. 251; Great Northern R. Co. v. Steinke, 261 U. S. 119.

References: § 13
 v. 
 § 2
 § 12
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.