Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

First Moon Vs. White Tail and United States

First Moon vs White Tail and United States

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-01-1926
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/94607

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
270 U.S. 243
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

First Moon

Respondent

White Tail and United States

Excerpt

.....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 intrusted to the exclusive cognizance of the secretary of the interior by the act of june 25, 1910, c. 431, § 1, 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 such 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 page 270 u. s. 245 blood or.....

Full Judgment

First Moon v. White Tail and United States - 270 U.S. 243 (1926)
U.S. Supreme Court First Moon v. White Tail and United States, 270 U.S. 243 (1926)

First Moon v. White Tail and United States

No.191

Argued January 29, 1926

Decided March 1, 1926

270 U.S. 243

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

SYLLABUS

1 A decision of the Secretary of the Interior determining who are the heirs of an Indian allottee who died intestate after receiving his trust patent under the General Allotment Act and before issuance of a fee simple patent, is made conclusive by the Act of June 10, 1910, and the district court is without jurisdiction to reexamine it for alleged error of law. So held in a suit against an adverse claimant and the United States. P. 270 U. S. 243 .

2. The Act of December 21, 1911, amending § 24 of the Judicial Code and conferring on district courts jurisdiction of actions involving the right of persons of Indian blood or decent to allotment, was but a codification of earlier provisions, and refers 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. P. 270 U. S. 244 .

Affirmed.

Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing, for want of jurisdiction, a bill to establish an interest in an Indian allotment.

MR. JUSTICE Mc REYNOLDS 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

Page 270 U. S. 244

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 intrusted to the exclusive cognizance of the Secretary of the Interior by the Act of June 25, 1910, c. 431, § 1, 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 such 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

Page 270 U. S. 245

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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial