PIGEON
v.
BUCK; ROBERTS V. UNDERWOOD
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.
Two cases involving the inheritance of allotted Native American lands turned on whether property received by enrolled Indians through federal allotment patents should be treated as ancestral estates under Arkansas law. The Supreme Court affirmed Oklahoma's determination that such allotted lands constituted ancestral property subject to the intestacy provisions of Arkansas Mansfield's Digest, resulting in the division of the estates between paternal and maternal relatives according to those statutory provisions.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
The opinion in McDougal v. McKay, announced today, ante, p. 372, considers and decides the questions involved in these writs of error and necessitates affirmation of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in both causes.
In No. 199, Pigeon v. Buck, all parties were enrolled full-blooded Creek Indians. The allottee, Lowiney Harjo, having received a patent to certain land, died July 12, 1905, intestate, without descendants, leaving father, mother, brothers, sister and her husband. Thereafter the father and mother — John and Mate Pigeon — claiming the land must be treated as an ancestral estate which passed to them in fee, conveyed their interest therein to Buck. The brothers and sister, maintaining that it was a new acquisition in the deceased and the father and mother took only a life estate with remainder in themselves, instituted suit to have their rights declared. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma (38 Oklahoma, 101) held the estate was ancestral and went half to the father and half to the mother according to the applicable provisions of chapter 49, Mansfield’s Digest, Statutes of 'Arkansas.
In No. 275, Roberts v. Underwood, the land in question was allotted and patented to a full-blooded Chickasaw Indian who thereafter and in 1907 died intestate, leaving no descendants. A contest arose between his paternal relatives, Underwood and Byrd, and a maternal relative, Roberts, concerning their respective interests in the property. Under the Act of April 28,1904, § 2, c. 1824, 33 Stat. 573, the devolution depended upon chapter 49, Mansfield’s Digest, Statutes of Arkansas. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma (38 Oklahoma, 376) adjudged the estate must be treated as ancestral and that half passed to the paternal relatives and half to the maternal one.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. Harris, 43 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1930)…ure of, or analogous to, an ancestral estate. Tbe principles laid down in Shulthis v. MacDougal, supra, bave been accepted and uniformly followed by tbe national courts and tbe Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Pigeon v. Buck, 38 Okl. 101,131 P. 1083; Id., 237 U. S. 386, 35 S. Ct. 608, 59 L. Ed. 1007; McDougal v. McKay, 43 Okl. 261,142 P. 987; Id., 237 U. S. 372, 35 S. Ct. 605, 59 L. Ed. 1001. In providing that tbe devolution of the estates of deceased Indians in OHahoma, after tbe admission of OHahoma into tbe Un…1 / 2
-
Perryman v. Woodward, 238 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1915)…w otherwise applicable, and to give a title at all events [*151] to the heir or other party named in the act as purchaser. For other illustrations of heirs not taking as purchasers under statutes see McDougal v. McKay, 237 U. S. 372; Pigeon v. Buck, 237 U. S. 386, April 26, 1915; Mullen v. United States, 224 U. S. 448. If the statute under which the above-mentioned probate decree was made was in force when the decree was passed, the later act does not attempt to deprive it of effect, but only establishes the…
-
Kunkel v. Barnett (N.D. Okla. 1926)…s birthright. It came to him by the blood of his tribal parent, and not by purchase.” This holding appears to be based upon the following authorities: Shulthis v. McDougal, 170 F. 529, 95 C. C. A. 615; Pigeon v. Buck, 38 Okl. 101, 131 P. 1083; Id., 237 U. S. 386, 35 S. Ct. 608, 59 L. Ed. 1007. I cannot agree with the conclusion reached, as reflected in this last opinion in Gray v. Chapman et al., supra. The eases cited in support of the conclusions reached are of very little value in the light of the statut…1 / 2