Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/92554/united-states-vs-chase
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 23:17:49
Document Index: 255375670

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 2448', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 2448']

United States Vs Chase - Citation 92554 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize United States Vs. Chase - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/92554CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnNov-05-1917Case Number245 U.S. 89AppellantUnited StatesRespondentChaseExcerpt:
united states v. chase - 245 u.s. 89 (1917)
leaving the united states and the tribe free to take such measures for the ultimate and permanent disposal of the lands, including the fee, as might become..... Judgment:
Possessory rights based on assignments made under Article IV of the treaty of 1865,
were terminated by the Act of 1882,
An assignee who failed to exercise his preferred right of selection waived it, and his assigned tract became allottable to any other qualified selector.
The provision in § 4 of the Act of August 7, 1882,
that "any right in severalty acquired by any Indian under existing treaties shall not be affected by this act" was not intended to qualify the plan of allotment defined in § 5, but only to prevent the sale under the earlier and separable portion of the act of tracts subject to Indian rights in severalty acquired under treaties.
A patent for an allotment issued under the Act of August 7, 1882,
in the name of an Indian who was dead at the time, inures to the benefit of his heir under § 2448, Rev.Stats.; the fact that the patentee had died before requisite proceedings had been taken
A like question was presented and considered in
Veale v. Maynes,
23 Kan. 1, a case arising out of the treaties of 1861 and 1867 with the Pottawatomie Indians. The earlier treaty provided, in language similar to that now under consideration, for the assignment of portions of the tribal reservation to individual members in severalty, and for the issue by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs of certificates for the assigned tracts,
Wiggan v. Conolly,
163 U. S. 56
, where the rights of an allottee, who was still a tribal Indian, were restricted by treaty after the allotment was made, this Court said:
"We therefore petition your honorable body to grant to each one a
clear and full title
to the land on which he has worked."
your favorable consideration, for we now labor with discouragement of heart,
knowing that our farms are not our own, and that, any day, we may be forced to leave
the lands on which we have worked. We desire to live and work on these farms where we have made homes, that our children may advance in the life we have adopted. To this end, and that we may go forward with hope and confidence in a better future for our tribe,
we ask of you titles to our lands.
treaty. The allotments were to be on a scale
of 160 acres to each head of a family, 80 acres to each single person over 18 years of age, 80 acres to each orphan child under 18 years, and 40 acres to each other person under 18 years. The Indians were severally to select the lands to be allotted to them, heads of families selecting for their children, and the agent selecting for orphan children. These allotments were to be "deemed and held to be in lieu of" the assignments under the treaty of 1865, but each assignee, when selecting the lands to be allotted to him, was to be accorded "a preference right" to select the tract embracing his improvements. In short, all rights under the assignments, as such, were to be extinguished, and each assignee was to have the same right to take an allotment as was accorded to other members, but with a preferred right to make his selection in such way that his allotment would include his improvements. The sixth section provided for the issue of trust patents covering a period of 25 years, and for full patents conveying the fee at the end of that period.
Some reliance is had upon the provision in § 4 that "any right in severalty acquired by any Indian under existing treaties shall not be affected by this act." But this, as an examination of the act discloses, is merely a saving clause in that part of the act providing for the sale of a distinct portion of the reservation. If the provision be read in connection with what is said in § 5 in dealing with allotments and with assignments under the treaty, it becomes manifest that it was not intended to interfere with or qualify the plan of allotment as defined in that section, but only to prevent the sale under the earlier and separable portion of the act of any tract to which an Indian had a right in severalty under a treaty. The legislative history of the act also sustains this view.
Cong.Rec. 47th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 3028-3032, 3077-3079.
According to the pleadings, Reuben Wolf died at some time after selecting the tract for his allotment, and before the issue of the patent in his name, and this is set up as an obstacle to a recovery on behalf of his heir. If there be any merit in this objection, it does not render the patent void, but only voidable. A statute in force for many years, and which this Court has applied to a patent issued under an Indian treaty for Indian lands, provides that, where the person to whom the patent issues is dead at the time, the title shall inure to and become vested in his heirs, devisees, or assigns, as if the patent had issued in his lifetime. Rev.Stats. § 2448;
1 Wall. 352,
68 U. S. 357
. Thus, the fact that Reuben Wolf was dead when the patent issued is, in itself, of no moment. If his selection had not advanced before his death to the