CATE ET AL.
v.
BEASLEY ET AL.

U.S. | 1936-11-09
No. 30
Mr. Justice McReynolds is of opinion that the challenged judgment should be reversed., Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
299 U.S. 30 Supreme Court of the United States (1936) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 81 L. Ed. 21 · 57 S. Ct. 59 · SCDB 1936-023 · 1936 U.S. LEXIS 4
Cited by 2 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

A Seminole Indian enrolled as such died in 1907 after selecting his allotment but before Oklahoma statehood, leaving surviving heirs enrolled as both Seminoles and Creeks, and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma had to determine whether his allotted land descended under Arkansas law to all his heirs or only to tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Oklahoma's judgment, holding that a 25-year-old settled rule of Oklahoma law applying Arkansas descent and distribution laws to Seminole allottees who died after selecting their allotment and before statehood was valid and should be upheld.

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

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

John Wadsworth, enrolled as a Seminole Indian, died on August 3, 1907, after selecting his allotment and prior to the admission of Oklahoma to statehood. Surviving him were his mother, brothers and sisters, enrolled as Seminóles, and his wife and three children enrolled as Creeks. In an action to quiet title the Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed a judgment sustaining demurrers to the petition. 175 Okl. 494; 53 P. (2d) 549. The Court said [pp. 494-495]:

“For 25 years it has been the settled rule of law in this State, in reliance upon which the stability and dependability of titles has depended, that the allotted land of a Seminole Indian, who died (1) after selecting his allotment, and (2) before statehood, descended to his heirs, in accordance with the Arkansas laws of descent and distribution, without regard to the above limitation to tribal citizens. . . . There is some merit in the assertion of plaintiffs in error that the first pronouncement of that rule, in Bruner v. Sanders, 26 Okl. 673, 110 P. 730, decided in the year 1910, is dictum. Nevertheless, if it was dictum, it was repeatedly followed by subsequent decisions of this court wherein it emerged from the realm of dictum into the point actually decided. Those cases are HelikerJarvis Seminole Co. v. Lincoln, 33 Okl. 425, 126 P. 723, Thorn v. Cone, 47 Okl. 781, 150 P. 701, Rentie v. Rentie, 70 Okl. 103, 172 P. 1083, Dickinson v. Abb, 73 Okl. 322, 176 P. 523, Lasiter v. Ferguson, 79 Okl. 200, 192 P. 197, and Stewart v. Billington, 122 Okl. 9, 250 P. 84.”

In view’ of the long established rule in Oklahoma as to the descent of the allotted land of a Seminole Indian who died after selecting his allotment and before statehood, the judgment is affirmed.

This decision is not to be construed as impairing the authority of our earlier decisions under the agreements made with other Indian tribes or under the Seminole Agreement with respect to a Seminole who died before selecting his allotment. See Washington v. Miller, 235 U. S. 422; McDougal v. McKay, 237 U. S. 372; Camp bell v. Wadsworth, 248 U. S. 169; Grayson v. Harris, 267 U. S. 352.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice McReynolds is of opinion that the challenged judgment should be reversed.

Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Brooksville Pharms. Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …tum, with Stewart Agency, ‘it emerged from the realm of dictum into the point actually decided.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Home Auto Glass LLC, No. 8:21-CV-239-TPB-AEP, 2025 WL 418015, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2025) (quoting Cate v. Beasley, 299 U.S. 30, 31 (1936)). Plaintiff's "deceptive trade practice" claim based on Brooksville's misbranding does not fare any better. The alleged deceptive act is that Brooksville deceived consumers by selling compounded semaglutide with a potency less than what…
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. At Home Auto Glass LLC (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …ive trade practice that injured a consumer.” Id. (emphasis supplied). If the statement by the court in Caribbean Cruise Line was dictum, with Stewart Agency, "it emerged from the realm of dictum into the point actually decided.” See Cate v. Beasley, 299 U.S. 30, 31 (1936). The only thing State Farm has to say about Stewart Agency is that it relied on Caribbean Cruise Line. But that is simply an argument that Stewart Agency is wrong, not an argument why the Court is not bound to follow it. See Nunez v. Gei…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw