Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-22-1914
Burke v. Southern Pacific R. Co. - 234 U.S. 669 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Burke v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 234 U.S. 669 (1914) Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company Nos. 279, 280 Argued January 13, 14, 1913 Decided June 22, 1914 234 U.S. 669 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Act of July 27, 1866, making a grant of alternate odd numbered sections of public land to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company in aid of the construction of its main-line railroad, did not include mineral lands, but, on the contrary, excluded them from its operation Page 234 U. S. 670 and provided that the company should receive other lands as indemnity for them. The administration of the grant, including the issue of patents following the construction of the road, was committed to the Land Department, of which the Secretary of the Interior is the supervising officer. It was contemplated by the granting act that the mineral or nonmineral characte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-05-1914
United States v. Buchanan - 232 U.S. 72 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Buchanan, 232 U.S. 72 (1914) United States v. Buchanan No. 589 Argued December 3, 1913 Decided January 5, 1914 232 U.S. 72 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus The term "public lands subject to settlement or entry" does not include lands that have been entered and a certificate of entry obtained therefor, and 3 of the Act of February 25, 1885, c. 149, 23 Stat. 322, does not apply to such lands. An entry withdraws the land from entry or settlement by another and segregates it from the public domain, and the possessory right acquired by the entryman is in the nature of private property, and entitled to protection as such, and interference with the peaceable possession of the entryman is not punishable under a federal statute applicable only to public lands still subject to entry. The grand jury for the District of Colorado indicted Buchanan f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-11-1914
Logan v. Davis - 233 U.S. 613 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Logan v. Davis, 233 U.S. 613 (1914) Logan v. Davis No. 247 Submitted March 9, 1914 Decided May 11, 1914 233 U.S. 613 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA Syllabus Under 237, Judicial Code, this Court has jurisdiction to review a judgment of a state court denying a claim duly set up under a confirmatory patent issued under 4 of the Land Grant Adjustment Act of 1887 and holding that the patentee was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of that section. The decision of the Secretary of the Interior that the grantee of a railroad company was a purchaser in good faith in the sense of the Adjustment Act of 1887, is conclusive so far as it is based on fact and cannot be disturbed except as it may be grounded upon an error of law, there being no charge of fraud. The practical interpretation of an ambiguous or uncertain statute by the executive department charged with its administration is entitled to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-08-1914
United States v. First National Bank of Detroit - 234 U.S. 245 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. First National Bank of Detroit, 234 U.S. 245 (1914) United States v. First National Bank of Detroit, Minnesota Nos. 873, 874, 875 Argued April 7, 1914 Decided June 8, 1914 234 U.S. 245 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The natural and usual signification of plain terms is to be adopted as the legislative meaning in the absence of clear showing that something else was meant. The rule that words in treaties with, and statutes affecting, Indians must be interpreted as the Indians understood them is not applicable where the statute is not in the nature of a contract and does not require the consent of the Indians to make it effectual. The after facts have but little weight in determining the meaning of legislation, and cannot overcome the meaning of plain words used in a statute; nor can the courts be influenced in administering a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-08-1914
Johnson v. Gearlds - 234 U.S. 422 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Johnson v. Gearlds, 234 U.S. 422 (1914) Johnson v. Gearlds No. 802 Argued May 1, 1914 Decided June 8, 1914 234 U.S. 422 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus Where complainant's entire case rests on the construction of treaties with Indians in regard to reservations and on the claim that certain of such treaties have been repealed by the subsequent admission of the territory within which the reservations are situated, this Court has jurisdiction of a direct appeal from the district court under 238, Judicial Code. The provision in Article VII of the Treaty with the Minnesota Chippewa Indians of 1855, that the laws of Congress prohibiting the manufacture and introduction of liquor in Indian country shall be in force within the entire boundaries of the country ceded by that treaty to the United States until otherwise provided by Congress, relates to the outer boun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-24-1914
United States v. Pelican - 232 U.S. 442 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442 (1914) United States v. Pelican No. 787 Argued January 13, 1914 Decided February 24, 1914 232 U.S. 442 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Syllabus The Colville Reservation in the Washington was set apart by Executive order in July, 1872, has been repeatedly recognized by acts of Congress and is a legally constituted reservation, and, as such, is included in Indian country to which 2145, Rev.Stat., refers. A legally constituted Indian reservation is nonetheless embraced within the Indian country referred to in 2145, Rev.Stat., because it may have been segregated from the public domain. The authority of Congress to deal with crimes committed on or against Indians upon the lands within an Indian Reservation is not affected Page 232 U. S. 443 by the admission of the Territory within which it is included as a state in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-30-1914
Minidoka & Southwestern R. Co. v. United States - 235 U.S. 211 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Minidoka & Southwestern R. Co. v. United States, 235 U.S. 211 (1914) Minidoka & Southwestern Railroad Company v. United States No.19 Argued October 29, 30, 1914 Decided November 30, 1914 235 U.S. 211 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Under the policy of the government to encourage the building of railroads in the western states, Congress has in some cases granted land to aid in construction and has also provided the means by which those companies not having such grants can, under reasonable conditions, acquire rights of way over public lands. While the right of way statute only applies to public lands, and therefore does not apply to lands segregated from the public domain by homestead entries, settlers may, under 2288, Rev.Stat., grant rights of way over land before final proof. Nothing in the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, affe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-22-1914
Lane v. Watts - 234 U.S. 525 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Lane v. Watts, 234 U.S. 525 (1914) Lane v. Watts No. 889 Argued April 14, 15, 1914 Decided June 22, 1914 234 U.S. 525 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A title which has passed by location of a grant and its approval by proper officers of the Land Department cannot be subsequently divested by the then officers of the department. Ballinger v. Frost, 216 U. S. 240 . The action of the Commissioner in approving the location of a nonmineral float cannot be revoked by his successor in office, and an attempt so to do can be enjoined. Noble v. Union River Logging Co., 147 U. S. 165 . A suit to restrain the Secretary of the Interior and the Land Commissioner from doing under color of their office an illegal act which will cast a cloud upon the title of complainant is not one against the United States, nor in this case is it one for recovery of land merely, or an attempted appeal from t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-24-1914
Jones v. St. Louis Land & Cattle Co. - 232 U.S. 355 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Jones v. St. Louis Land & Cattle Co., 232 U.S. 355 (1914) Jones v. St. Louis Land & Cattle Company No. 203 Argued January 27, 1914 Decided February 24, 1914 232 U.S. 355 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO Syllabus The Act of June 21, 1860, expressly reserved the adverse rights of parties to the Mexican and Spanish grants confirmed thereby and provided that the confirmations should only be considered as quitclaims and relinquishments on the part of the United States. The Act of June 21, 1860, confirming Mexican and Spanish grants, was intended to be a discharge of the obligations of our treaty with Mexico and a confirmation of existing rights as they existed; it was not a gratuity like the railroad land grant acts, nor are overlapping rights in grants confirmed thereby to be shared equally as overlapping railroad grants are shared. Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-16-1914
Taylor v. Parker - 235 U.S. 42 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. Parker, 235 U.S. 42 (1914) Taylor v. Parker No. 58 Submitted November 5, 1914 Decided November 16, 1914 235 U.S. 42 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus In view of the evils sought to be prevented, and in aid of the expressed policy of the Indians and the United States, the prohibition on alienation by allottees under the Choctaw and Chickasaw agreement ratified by the Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, should be construed as extending to devise by will. While the Act of April 28, 1904, putting in force the laws of Arkansas in the Indian Territory, enabled an Indian to dispose of his alienable property, it did not operate to remove existing statutory restrictions. That it was the understanding of Congress that an act did not remove restrictions may be indicated by subsequent acts passed for the express purpose of removing such restrictions. 33 Okl. 199 affirmed. The facts...
Tag this Judgment!