Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/235/417/case.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-17 23:41:35
Document Index: 496105468

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 648', '§ 4621', '§ 4621', '§ 4621', '§ 648']

Adkins v. Arnold, (full text) :: 235 U.S. 417 (1914) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 235 › Adkins v. Arnold › Case
235 U.S. 417 (1914)
In putting the laws of Arkansas in force in the Indian Territory by the Acts of May 2, 1890, and February 19, 1903, Congress intended that those laws should have the same force and meaning that they had in Arkansas, and that they should be construed as they had theretofore been interpreted by the supreme court of that state. Robinson v. Belt, 187 U. S. 41.
The claim that the deed to Arnold was made in violation of existing restrictions rests upon the assumption that § 16 of the Act of June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 500, c. 1323, imposed restrictions upon the alienation of all Creek allotments. That this is an erroneous assumption is shown is Skelton v. Dill, ante, p. 235 U. S. 206. Only allotments to living members in their own right were subjected to restrictions. Allotments on behalf of deceased members were left unrestricted. Thus, the mother was at liberty to make a sale of her interest to Arnold if she chose.
It is insisted that § 648 is inconsistent with § 4621, and should be treated as controlling because its adoption by Congress was the later in time. Assuming that the two sections are inconsistent, as claimed, we think § 4621 is controlling. While both were embodied in the Arkansas compilation known as Mansfield's Digest of 1884, § 4621 was a later enactment than § 648, and superseded the latter insofar as they were in conflict. This was settled by the supreme court of the state before either section was put in force in the Indian Territory (Bryan v. Winburn, 43 Ark. 28; Stone v. Stone, 43 Ark. 160; Criscoe v. Hambrick, 47 Ark. 235), and we think Congress intended they should have the same force and meaning there that they had in Arkansas. See Robinson v. Belt, 187 U. S. 41, 187 U. S. 47-48. Although put in force in the Indian Territory by different acts, they were not adopted as if they were unrelated, but as parts of a single system of laws whose relative operation, as determined by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, had become an integral part of them. Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 27 U. S. 18; Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. 264, 30 U. S. 280. It was upon this theory that the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held the mother's deed sufficient.