Case Name: PETERS v. TALLCHIEF
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-09-25
Citations: 106 N.Y.S. 64
Docket Number: 
Parties: PETERS v. TALLCHIEF.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 106
Pages: 64–74

Head Matter:
(121 App. Div. 309.)
PETERS v. TALLCHIEF.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
September 25, 1907.)
1. Indians—Lands—Allotment.
Laws 1854, p. 369, c. 175, § 1, permitted allotments of land to Tuscarora Indians by their chiefs or headmen. Indian Law, Laws 1892, p. 1575, c. 679, § 7, provides that any nation of Indians owning land may partition it among the individuals and families of such nation, and section 90, p. 1596, provides that the chiefs of the Tuscarora Indians shall allot to any Indian making application and not possessing land so much of the tribal lands as they shall deem just. Section 2, p. 1574, expressly authorizes an Indian to take, hold, and convey property the same as a citizen. De cedent, a Tuscarora Indian, occupied premises upwards of 28 years, claiming to own the same under an allotment, and at his death petitioner and her husband, both Indians, occupied the premises, the same having been devised to the husband, who was decedent’s son, and after the death of petitioner’s husband she continued to occupy the premises with her infant child for about two or three weeks, when she was ousted by defendant, a daughter of decedent. Helé, that petitioner was entitled to possession of the lands as against defendant.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Indians, § 50.]
2. Same—Jurisdiction Oveb Indian Reservations.
Under Indian Law, Laws 1892, p. 1575, c. 679, § 5, providing that any demand or right of action by an Indian, jurisdiction of which is not conferred on a peacemakers’ court, may be enforced in any state court the same as if the parties were citizens, a Tuscarora Indian may maintain an action in a state court for the possession of land on the Tuscarora Indian reservation, which, when dispossessed, she was holding in accordance with the customs recognized by those Indians; the Tuscarora Indians having no peacemakers’ court or other tribunal to which she might resort for relief.
McLennan, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Niagara County Court.
Summary proceedings to recover the possession of certain premises by Linnie L. Peters in behalf of herself and her infant daughter, Irene Peters, against Allie Tallchief, From a judgment of the County Court (102 N. Y. Supp. 972), reversing a final order of a justice of the peace, awarding possession of the premises to her, Linnie L. Peters appeals. Judgment of the County Court reversed, and final order of justice of the peace affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, KRUSE, and ROBSON, JJ.
William E. Lockner, for appellant.
W. Luther Reeves, for respondent.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
The proceeding was brought to recover the possession of certain lands, situate on the Tuscarora Indian reservation, in the town of Lewiston, Niagara county, consisting of about 23 acres of farm land, with buildings thereon, and occupied for many years by Jeremiah Peters, a Tuscarora Indian, up to the time of his death in March, 1900. Both the petitioner and the defendant are Tuscarora Indians. The defendant is his daughter and the petitioner is his daughter-in-law. No evidence was given on behalf of the defendant, but she contended, and now insists, that the courts of this state have not jurisdiction, for the reason that the parties to the controversy are Indians, and that the premises are Indian tribal lands. The justice of the peace overruled her objections, and awarded possession of the lands to the petitioner, but, upon appeal, the County Court reversed the judgment, and the petitioner now appeals to this court.
It appears that Jeremiah Peters occupied the premises for upwards of 28 years, claiming to own the same under an allotment thereof made to him by the chiefs or head men of the Tuscarora Indians. After the death of Jeremiah Peters, which occurred in March, 1900, his son, the petitioner's husband, occupied and claimed to own the premises, the same having been devised to him by his father. The petitioner occupied the premises with her husband until the husband became insane in 1905, when he was confined in an asylum, where he remained for about a year, when he died, his death occurring in March, 1906. After his confinement in the asylum, his wife continued to occupy the premises with their infant daughter until about two or three weeks after the death of her husband, when she was ousted by the defendant. It further appears that, while the petitioner was temporarily absent from the house situate upon the premises, the defendant broke into the house and took possession of the same. Upon being asked to give up possession of the premises and the things in the house, the defendant refused to move from the house, or even to give up possession of the petitioner's furniture and goods, consisting of a stove, bedstead, dishes, cupboard, sewing machine, and some chairs. The petitioner claims she was entitled to the possession of the premises; that, in addition to her dower; she had the widow's quarantine right, which continued for 40 days after the death of her husband (Real Property Law, § 184; Fowler on Real Property, 439, 440), and was the guardian in socage of her infant child (Domestic Relations Law, § 50), which enabled her to recover possession of the infant's lands (Foley et al. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. 333, 339, 34 N. E. 211, 20 L. R. A. 620, 34 Am. St. Rep. 456).
It is unnecessary to define or classify the precise right that Jeremiah Peters had in the land under the allotment so made to him. That it was a substantial right entitling him to the exclusive possession thereof seems clear. As early as 1854 the Legislature, evidently recognizing the change in the manner and custom of these Indians, permitted allotments of this character to be made by the chiefs (Laws 1854, p. 369, c. 175, § 1), and such an allotment is now sanctioned by the Indian law (Laws 1892, pp. 1575, 1596, c. 679, § 7, 90). The same law expressly authorizes a native Indian to take, hold, and convey real property the same as a citizen (section 2), and the right of an Indian under such an allotment of tribal lands has been recognized and protected by our state courts (Jimeson v. Pierce, 78 App. Div. 9, 79 N. Y. Supp. 3). The right of the son and his family to occupy and enjoy the lands so devised to him by his father does not appear to have been questioned by the chiefs or any one else, save the defendant; and she does not seem to have asserted any claim to the property until after the death of her brother. In the absence of any right thereto, I think it clear that the defendant was not justified in ousting the petitioner from the premises as she did, and that the petitioner is entitled to the possession of the lands as against the defendant. The undisputed evidence shows that the defendant intruded into and squatted upon the premises without any right thereto.
The more serious question, however, is whether the petitioner may resort to the courts of this state for the enforcement of her right against the defendant. If she may not have redress in our courts, she appears to be remediless, since the- proof shows that, unlike some of the other Indians, the Tuscarora Indians have no peacemakers' court or other judicial tribunal of their own to which the petitioner may resort for the enforcement of her right. While these Indians may voluntarily submit matters in controversy to their chiefs, neither party to a controversy can be compelled to do so, as the proof shows, and there is no claim that the defendant has offered to so submit the matter, evidently for the very obvious reason that she is now in possession of the property, and there is no need of submitting the matter in controversy for determination if she can hold and enjoy the property thus wrongfully taken from the petitioner without being amenable to judicial proceedings. I am, however, of the opinion that the defendant is not beyond the reach of our state courts, and that the petitioner may resort thereto for. the enforcement of her right to the possession of these premises against the defendant. Section 5 of the Indian law provides as follows:
"Any demand or right of action, jurisdiction of which is not conferred upon a peacemakers' court, may be prosecuted and enforced in any court of the state, the same as if all the parties thereto were citizens."
As regards certain Indian reservations having courts of their own, provision is made in the Indian law of our state for the enforcement of the determinations of such Indian courts by appropriate proceedings in our state courts (section 53), as was done in the case of Jimeson v. Pierce, above referred to. Such courts have long been maintained by the Seneca Nation of Indians, and are recognized in our Indian law (article 3, c. 679, p. 1582, Laws 1892), but no such provision is contained therein regarding the Tuscarora Indians. While the record itself contains little, if anything, beyond what has already been stated regarding the status of the Tuscarora Indians, it is evident that they are farther advanced in civilization and their tribal relations less intact than that of the larger reservations. In the report of the committee of the Assembly made in 1889, to which both counsel refer, it is stated that they are more enlightened and better educated than any other reservation in the state. They came originally from North Carolina, and acquired their lands by purchase from the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Holland Land Company. These lands, consisting of about 6,000 acres, have been quite generally allotted among the individual Indians, who have occupied and improved the same. To leave these Indians without adequate means for the protection of their rights, thus permitting the indolent and the evil disposed Indians to wrong the thrifty and the honest with impunity, presents a situation so deplorable and disastrous in its consequences that we ought not to reach that conclusion, if it can be avoided. I realize that, if the deficiency is in the law itself, the remedy is with the lawmaking power, and not the judiciary; but the very purpose of the statute in permitting an Indian to resort to our courts in the first instance, or to enforce a determination of a peacemakers' court, was to afford an adequate remedy by a proper judicial proceeding. This is not a case where the petitioner's right of action contravenes some custom or law of the tribe to which she belongs. The proof shows that this property was being held and enjoyed quite in accordance with the customs and practices recognized by the Indians themselves. The question here presented is whether she may resort to our courts to vindicate such right. In Jimeson v. Pierce, supra, where the right to hold in severalty lands upon the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation was upheld, Mr. Justice Williams, speaking for this court, says:
"For many years the Legislature has passed laws for the protection of the rights and property of these Indians and the enforcement of such rights under the laws so passed. We see no reason why such laws should not be regarded as valid, and should not be enforced. While it has been frequently held that the Indians cannot come into our courts and bring actions in the absence of acts of the Legislature enabling them to do so, yet it has always been held that they can do so under enabling acts when they have been passed."
I think the petitioner's case is within the provisions of the statute, and that the judgment of the County Court should be reversed, and the final order of the justice of the peace should be affirmed, with costs. All concur, except McLENNAN, P. J., who dissents.'