Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/236/58/case.php
Timestamp: 2018-06-23 04:39:21
Document Index: 791519364

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 49', '§ 28', '§ 3', '§ 28', '§ 30', '§ 26', '§ 7', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 8', '§ 6', '§ 7']

REYNOLDS V. FEWELL, 236 U. S. 58 (1915) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 236 > REYNOLDS V. FEWELL, 236 U. S. 58 (1915)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 236 U. S. 58
The Supplemental Creek Agreement of 1902, providing that the descent and distribution of allotments should be in accordance with § 49, Mansfield's Digest, Laws of Arkansas, was not an interpretation chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The defendant in error brought this action to recover certain lands which had been allotted under the Original Creek Agreement (Act of March 1, 1901, c. 676, 31 Stat. 861; 32 Stat.1971). The allotments described in the complaint had been made on behalf of two deceased Creeks, Minnie Solander and her infant daughter, Hettie L. Solander -- that is, the respective allotments ran to the "heirs" of each. The defendant in error claimed under a lease, executed on September 7, 1905, by George A. Solander, the surviving husband of Minnie Solander, and father of the other decedent. At the time of the death of his wife and daughter, as for some years previously, George A. Solander "resided in the Creek Nation," but he was not a citizen of that Nation. The plaintiff in error claimed under a conveyance from Phoebe B. Trusler, an enrolled Creek, who, as the sister of Minnie Solander, was the nearest relative of Indian blood. The question was whether George A. Solander was entitled to take as "heir" despite chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We are thus referred to the "laws of descent and distribution of the Creek Nation" to ascertain the persons entitled to the property. This explicit and determinative reference disposes of the contention that George A. Solander, although he might be an "heir" under the Creek laws, nevertheless could not take the lands in controversy because, being a noncitizen, he was not entitled to the allotment of a distributive share of the tribal lands in his own right. It is sought to find support for this contention in the concluding paragraph of § 28, above quoted, which provides that the approved rolls shall be the final rolls of citizenship, upon which "allotment of all lands . . . shall be made, and to no other persons." But this paragraph should be read in the light of § 3 of the Act of 1901, supra, under which all lands were to be allotted "among the citizens of the tribe" so as "to give each an equal share of the whole in value, as nearly as may be." The persons who were to receive these equal portions were those duly ascertained and enrolled, and the rolls approved by the Secretary of the Interior were to be final with respect to membership in the tribe and the corresponding determination of the distributive shares of the tribal lands. Thus, the provision of the last paragraph of § 28 had manifest regard to those who were to receive allotments if living, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We have recently had occasion to review the course of legislation with respect to the distribution of the property of Creek intestates. Washington v. Miller, 235 U. S. 422; Sizemore v. Brady, 235 U. S. 441. The Creek Nation, as a "distinct political society" ( 30 U. S. 16), had its own laws governing the devolution of the property of its citizens. When Congress put in force in the Indian Territory certain general laws of Arkansas, including Chapter 49 of Mansfield's Digest, relating to descents and distributions, it provided that "the judicial tribunals of the Indian Nations" should retain exclusive jurisdiction in all cases in which members of the Nation should be the only parties, and that to such cases the laws of Arkansas should not apply. Act of May 2, 1890, c. 182, §§ 30, 26 Stat. 81, 94, 95. In 1897, however, it was provided that the laws of the United States and of the State of Arkansas in force in the Indian Territory should "apply to all persons therein, irrespective of race" (Act of June 7, 1897, c. 3, 30 Stat. 62, 83), and in 1898, Congress chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
abolished the tribal courts and prohibited the enforcement of the tribal laws. Act of June 28, 1898, c. 517, §§ 26, 28, 30 Stat. 495, 504. The Original Creek Agreement of 1901, supra, operated again to make effective, for the purposes stated, the Creek tribal laws with respect to "descent and distribution" of the property of Creek intestates (see@ §§ 7 and 28), and the provisions having this import remained in force until their repeal in the following year. Act of May 27, 1902, c. 888, 32 Stat. 245, 258, 32 Stat. 742; Supplemental Agreement, Act of June 30, 1902, c. 1323, § 6, 32 Stat. 500, 501.
It will be observed that §§ 6 and 8 make no distinction between citizens and noncitizens. Under § 8, it is "the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
shall be void. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
That the intermarried noncitizen could inherit under the tribal laws appears to have been the conclusion reached chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It is insisted that the supplemental Creek Agreement of 1902 (supra), in § 6, contains an interpretation by Congress of the words used in §§ 7 and 28 of the Act of 1901. But we do not so read the later statute. Its evident chanroblesvirtualawlibrary