Court Opinion

ID: 9636693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:39:43.972845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:48.171061
License: Public Domain

BRATTON, Circuit Judge (specially concurring). 4
I think the sums which accrue to a headright after the death of an Osage Indian pass by virtue of the act of 1906 directly to his heirs subject only to payment of last illness and funeral expenses and to discharge bequests. The act of 1912 vested the probate courts in Oklahoma with jurisdiction of only so much of such funds as was necessary to pay such expenses and perhaps bequests. The courts were not vested with jurisdiction over the balance because it was not property of the decedent. Instead, it was property of the heirs. But the administrative department, charged with the duty of administering the pertinent acts, construed them otherwise and throughout a period of almost twenty years it consistently approved payment of all of such money to executors and administra*155tors, some of which was used to pay general debts of estates. The question is not free from doubt, and under repeated decisions the construction which an administrative department consistently places upon a statute of doubtful interpretation over a long period of time is strongly persuasive and will not be overthrown unless it is clearlv wrong. United States v. Jackson, 280 U.S. 183, 50 S.Ct. 143, 74 L.Ed. 361; Taylor v. Tayrien (C.C.A.) 51 F.(2d) 884; United States v. La Motte (C.C.A.) 67 F.(2d) 788; City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. (C.C.A.) 75 F.(2d) 343. I concur in the reversal on that ground.