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.

Cate Vs. Beasley

Cate vs Beasley

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Nov-09-1936
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/96294

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
299 U.S. 30
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

Cate

Respondent

Beasley

Excerpt

.....after selecting his allotment and prior page 299 u. s. 31 to the admission of oklahoma to statehood. surviving him were his mother, brothers, and sisters, enrolled as seminoles, 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: "for twenty-five 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 the 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 heliker-jarvis 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, 199, 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.....

Full Judgment

Cate v. Beasley - 299 U.S. 30 (1936)
U.S. Supreme Court Cate v. Beasley, 299 U.S. 30 (1936)

Cate v. Beasley

No. 30

Argued October 19, 1936

Decided November 9, 1936

299 U.S. 30

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA

SYLLABUS

By a construction of the Seminole Agreement (Act of June 2, 1900) long established as a rule of property in Oklahoma, which this Court accepts, land allotted to a Seminole Indian who died after selecting his allotment and before Oklahoma became a State descended to his heirs in accordance with Arkansas laws of descent, without regard to whether heirs were Seminole citizens.

175 Okla. 494, 53 P. 2d 549, affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

John Wadsworth, enrolled as a Seminole Indian, died on August 3, 1907, after selecting his allotment and prior

Page 299 U. S. 31

to the admission of Oklahoma to statehood. Surviving him were his mother, brothers, and sisters, enrolled as Seminoles, 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:

"For twenty-five 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 the 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 Heliker-Jarvis 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, 199, 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 ; Campbell

Page 299 U. S. 32

v. Wadsworth, 248 U. S. 169 ; Grayson v. Harris, 267 U. S. 352 .

MR. JUSTICE Mc REYNOLDS is of opinion that the challenged judgment should be reversed.

MR. JUSTICE STONE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial