CHILDERS, STATE AUDITOR,
v.
BEAVER ET AL.

U.S. | 1926-04-12
No. 202
270 U.S. 555 Supreme Court of the United States (1926) Caution
Also reported at: 70 L. Ed. 730 · 46 S. Ct. 387 · SCDB 1925-096 · 1926 U.S. LEXIS 431
Cited by 24 cases

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.

Synopsis

See-Sah Quapaw, a full-blood Quapaw Indian woman, died in 1920 owning allotted Oklahoma lands subject to federal restrictions on alienation, and her heirs inherited the lands under federal law adopting Oklahoma's descent statute. The Supreme Court affirmed that Oklahoma could not impose inheritance taxes on the lands during the trust period, holding that Congress has the power to control allotted Indian lands within a state and that the means used to exercise this power cannot be subjected to state taxation without federal consent.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McReynolds

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.

See-Sah Quapaw, a full-blood Quapaw Indian woman, died March 4, 1920. .She owned certain duly allotted lands in Oklahoma, patented by the Secretary of the Interior September 26, 1896, and declared to be “ inalienable for a period of twenty-five years” thereafter — ali as provided by the Act of March 2, 1895, c. 188, § 1, 28 Stat. 876, 907. Following the state statute of descent, the Secretary declared that the only heirs wore her husband, and brother — John Beaver and Benjamin Quapaw — full-blood Quapaws. Act June 25, 1910, c. 431, § 1, 36 Stat. 855. Henrietta First Moon v. Starling White Tail, 270 U. S. 243. Restrictions upon the land were continued for another twenty-five years by the Act of-March 3, 1921, c. 119, § 26, 41 Stat. 1225, 1248.

Apparently appellant supposed that the lands passed to the heirs by virtue of the laws of the State and were subject to the inheritance taxes which she laid. He accordingly demanded their payment of appellees and threatened enforcement by summary process and sale of the lands. The court below held that the State had no right to demand the taxes and restrained appellant from attempting to collect them.

The duty of the Secretary of the Interior to determine the heirs according to the State law of descent, is not questioned. Congress provided that the lands should descend and directed how the heirs should be ascertained. It adopted the provisions of the Oklahoma statute as an expression of its own' will — the laws of Missouri or. Kansas, or any other State, might Rave been accepted. The lands really passed under a law of the United States, and not by Oklahoma’s permission.

It must be accepted as established that during the trust or restrictive period Congress has power to control lands within a State which have been duly allotted to Indians by the United States and thereafter conveyed through trust or restrictive patents. This is essential to the proper discharge of their duty to a dependent people; and the means or instrumentalities utilized therein cannot be subjected to taxation by the State without assent of the federal government. The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737; Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286; Choctaw, etc., R. R. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292; Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U. S. 506; Lane v. Mickadiet, 241 U. S. 201; Jefferson v. Fink, 247 U. S. 288; Blanset v. Cardin, 256 U. S. 319; United States v. Bowling, 256 U. S. 484; McCurdy v. United States, 264 U. S. 484; Sperry Oil Co. v. Chisholm, 264 U. S. 488.

The decree below must be

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • McCLANAHAN v. Ariz. State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1973)
    …re violated when the state collected a tax from her which it had no jurisdiction to impose. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below must be Reversed. See, e. g., Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. United States, 319 U. S. 598 (1943); Childers v. Beaver, 270 U. S. 555 (1926); United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432 (1903); The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 (1867). Cf. Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U. S. 1 (1956). State courts have disagreed on the question. Compare Ghahate v. Bureau of Revenue, 80 N. M. 98, 451 P. 2d 10…
  • Okla. Tax Comm'n v. United States, 319 U.S. 598 (U.S. 1943)
    …ate.” 2 The language of the statutes does not except either Indians or any other persons from their scope. Efforts of Oklahoma to apply this tax to the estate of a deceased Quapaw Indian were frustrated by this Court's opinion in Childers v. Beaver, 270 U. S. 555, [*601] decided in 1926. Shortly afterwards the Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to sustain the tax on an Osage estate under the impression that this result was required by the Beaver decision; but, significantly, the Oklahoma court held that the scop…
  • Superior OIL Co. v. Fontenot, 213 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1954)
    …he title and possession of lessees under the lease and fully supports the severance taxes, appellants oppose the teachings of McCurdy v. United States, 264 U.S. 484, 44 S.Ct. 345, 68 L.Ed. 801, and cases following it, among them Chil-ders v. Beaver, 270 U.S. 555, 558, 46 S.Ct. 387, 70 L.Ed. 730, and Santa Rita Oil & Gas Co. v. Board of Equalization, 101 Mont. 268, 54 P. 2d 117, which applied the doctrine of McCurdy’s case to severance taxes of the State of Montana, sought to be imposed on indians’ royalties…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (23 total)

View all 23 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw