HALL
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The federal government has the power to maintain an action for the recovery of restricted Indian land held under a void lease.
The federal government brought an action to recover restricted Indian land leased under a void lease. The appellant sought restoration of consideratio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
The main question presented by this appeal is whether the federal government has power to maintain an action for the recovery of restricted Indian Land against one who holds such land under a void lease or whether such action must be brought in the name of the lessee claiming right to possession under a valid lease from the allottee.
Since we are dealing here with a restricted Indian, a ward of the federal government, and her restricted land, the answer must be sought in the federal decisions. An unbroken line of decisions clearly establishes the power of the government to maintain such an action.1
The subsidiary question presented is that the court should have in any event required a restoration of the consideration paid by appellant to the restricted Indian for the void lease. No request was made that the allottee, Jane Robinson, be made a party to the action for this purpose. See Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 413, 32 S.Ct. 424, 56 L.Ed. 820. It is clear from the record that the court did not err in refusing to require restoration of the consideration.
Upon authority of Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 413, 32 S.Ct. 424, 56 L.Ed. 820, and other cases cited in Footnote 1, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
. Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 413, 32 S.Ct. 424, 56 L.Ed. 820; United States v. Forness, 2 Cir., 125 F. 2d 928; United States v. Gilbertson, 7 Cir., 111 F. 2d 978; United States v. Drumb, 10 Cir., 152 F. 2d 821; United States v. Colvard, 4 Cir., 89 F. 2d 312; Board of Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma v. United States, 10 Cir., 94 F. 2d 450; McGugin v. United States, 10 Cir., 109 F. 2d 94; Stoltz v. United States, 9 Cir., 99 F. 2d 283.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fraser v. United States, 261 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1958)
-
Siniscal v. United States, 208 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1953)
Authorities Cited
- Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1912)
- United States v. Forness, 125 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1942)
- United States v. Drumb, 152 F.2d 821 (10th Cir. 1946)
- United States v. Colvard, 89 F.2d 312 (4th Cir. 1937)
- Bd. of Com'rs of Tulsa Cnty. v. United States, 94 F.2d 450 (10th Cir. 1938)
- Stoltz v. United States, 99 F.2d 283 (9th Cir. 1938)
- McGUGIN v. United States, 109 F.2d 94 (10th Cir. 1940)
- United States v. Gilbertson, 111 F.2d 978 (7th Cir. 1940)