English v. Richardson

Supreme Court

English v. Richardson

224 U.S. 680, 32 S. Ct. 571, 56 L. Ed. 949, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2336

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 13, 1912

Docket559

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 224 U.S. 680 (English v. Richardson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680, 32 S. Ct. 571, 56 L. Ed. 949, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2336 (1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Lamar

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff holds a patent dated December 12, 1902. It was issued to her as a member of the Creek Nation when the tribal lands were divided in pursuance of the same general policy as that discussed in Choate v. Trapp, ante, p. 665. There were, however, a few differences. The tax exemption covered only the homestead of forty acres, *681 and there was a restriction on alienability for 21 years. The patent, instead of being “framed in conformity with the Agreement,” as in the case of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, bore on its face a provision- that the land should be non-taxable; the language of the Agreement incorporated in the act of Congress, being that “Each citizen shall select from his allotment forty acres of land . . . as a homestead, which shall be and remain non-taxable, inalienable and free from any encumbrance whatever for 21 years from the date of the deed therefor, and a separate deed shall be issued to each allottee for his homestead, in which this condition shall appear.”

• These differences are not material. The right of plaintiff to the exemption granted by Congress is protected by the Constitution on principles stated and applied in Choate v. Trapp. The judgment dismissing her complaint is therefore reversed and the case remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with that opinion.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Lamar

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff holds a patent dated December 12, 1902. It was issued to her as a member of the Creek Nation when the tribal lands were divided in pursuance of the same general policy as that discussed in Choate v. Trapp, ante, p. 665. There were, however, a few differences. The tax exemption covered only the homestead of forty acres, *681 and there was a restriction on alienability for 21 years. The patent, instead of being “framed in conformity with the Agreement,” as in the case of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, bore on its face a provision- that the land should be non-taxable; the language of the Agreement incorporated in the act of Congress, being that “Each citizen shall select from his allotment forty acres of land . . . as a homestead, which shall be and remain non-taxable, inalienable and free from any encumbrance whatever for 21 years from the date of the deed therefor, and a separate deed shall be issued to each allottee for his homestead, in which this condition shall appear.”

• These differences are not material. The right of plaintiff to the exemption granted by Congress is protected by the Constitution on principles stated and applied in Choate v. Trapp. The judgment dismissing her complaint is therefore reversed and the case remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with that opinion.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 U.S. 680, 32 S. Ct. 571, 56 L. Ed. 949, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/english-v-richardson-scotus-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack