FIRST MOON
v.
WHITE TAIL AND 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.
First Moon, claiming to be the sole surviving lawful wife of a deceased Ponca Indian allottee, sought to establish her interest in lands allotted under the General Allotment Act, but the Secretary of the Interior had excluded her from the list of heirs. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Secretary of the Interior possessed exclusive jurisdiction to determine the legal heirs of deceased Indian allottees under the Act of June 25, 1910, and that this exclusive authority was not repealed by subsequent legislation conferring general federal court jurisdiction over Indian allotment disputes.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McRetnolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
. Appellant seeks to establish an interest in certain lands allotted to Little Soldier, a Ponca Indian, under the General Allotment Act of 1887, c. 119, 24 Stat. 388, as amended by the Act of 1891, c. 383, 26 Stat. 794. Trust patents were issued therefor in 1895, and he died March 1, 1919. It appears from the bill that the Secretary of the Interior after due consideration determined who were the heirs, and in doing so eliminated appellant, although she claimed to be the only surviving lawful wife. It is alleged that upon the facts found by him the Secretary misapplied the law.
The court below held, correctly we think, that it was without jurisdiction, since the matter had been entrusted to the exclusive cognizance of the Secretary of the Interior by the Act of June 25, 1910, c. 431, 36 Stat. 855, which provides: “ That when any Indian to whom'.an allotment of land has been made, or may hereafter be made, dies before the expiration of the trust period and before the issuance of a fee simple patent, without having made a will disposing of said allotment as hereinafter provided, the Secretary of the Interior, upon notice and hearing, under such rules as he may prescribe, shall ascertain the legal heirs of súch decedent, and his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive.”
The question presented must be regarded as settled by what this court has said in Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U. S. 506; Lane v. Mickadiet, 241 U. S. 201; United States v. Bowling, 256 U. S. 484. The legislative history of the Act of 1910 — Cong. Rec. vol. 45, p. 5811 — lends support to this construction; and abundant reason for the provision. becomes apparent upon consideration of the infinite difficulties which otherwise would arise in connection with the sundry duties of the Secretary of the Interior relative to Indian allotments.
We cannot accept the suggestion that the above-quoted exclusive feature of the Act of 1910, was repealed by the Act of December 21,1911, c. 5, 37 Stat. 46, which amended § 24 Judicial Code and conferred upon District Courts jurisdiction “ of all actions, suits, or proceedings involving the right of any person, in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent,, to any allotment of land under any law or treaty.” This paragraph is but a codification of provisions found in the Act of August 15, 1894, c. 290, 28 Stat. 305, as amended by the Act of February 6, 1901, c. 217, 31 Stat. 760. It has reference to original allotments claimed under some law or treaty, ,and not to disputes concerning the heirs of one who held a valid and unquestioned allotment.
The decree is
Affirmed. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1972)…Reynolds v. United States, 174 F. 212 (CA8 1909). See the Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, as amended, 25 U. S. C. §§ 331-334. Section 345 authorizes, and provides governmental consent for, only actions for allotment. First Moon v. White Tail, 270 U. S. 243 (1926); Harkins v. United States, 375 F. 2d 239 (CA 10 1967); United States v. Preston, 352 F. 2d 352, 355 (CA9 1965). See Arenas v. United States, 322 U. S. 419 (1944). Although the interest in the mineral estate that AUC seeks to have conveyed pr…1 / 2
-
Tooahnippah (goombi) v. Hickel, 397 U.S. 598 (U.S. 1970)…ken by the Court of Appeals, reading into § 2 the language of the first section of the 1910 Act, which declares that the Secretary’s decisions ascertaining the legal heirs of deceased Indians are “final and conclusive.” Cf. First Moon v. White Tail, 270 U. S. 243, 244 (1926). The respondents contend that §§ 1 and 2 of the 1910 Act must be read in pari materia because both deal with the Secretary’s power over the devolution of lands held in trust by the United States and both vest in the Secretary broad manag…
-
Prairie Band OF the Pottawatomie Tribe OF Indians v. Mage N. Puckkee, 321 F.2d 767 (10th Cir. 1963)…53 was enacted for a rather narrow and specific purpose, i. e., to give district courts jurisdiction over claims of right to ‘original allotments,’ or * * * allotments in the ‘first instance’ * * And see: Henrietta First Moon v. Starling White Tail, 270 U.S. 243, 46 S.Ct. 246, 70 L.Ed. 565; and Gerard v. United States, 9 Cir., 167 F. 2d 951. This suit, in no way involves the right to “any allotment of land under any Act of Congress or treaty,” and Federal jurisdiction cannot, therefore, be sustained under t…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1916)
- Lane v. United States Ex rel. Mickadiet and Tiebault, 241 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1916)
- United States v. Bowling, 256 U.S. 484 (U.S. 1921)