Gentry v. McCurry

1933 OK 323, 22 P.2d 75, 164 Okla. 1, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 732
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 16, 1933
Docket21370
StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK 323 (Gentry v. McCurry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gentry v. McCurry, 1933 OK 323, 22 P.2d 75, 164 Okla. 1, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 732 (Okla. 1933).

Opinion

BUSBY, J.

This is an action in ejectment and to quiet title to 40 acres of the surplus allotment of Blanche L. Gentry, nee Fronkier, a one-eighth blood Osage Indian. The mineral rights under said lands are not involved. The allottee was bom October 26, 1897. While still a minor her guardian sold the land in question through guardianship sale in the county court of Osage county. She reached 21 years of age October 26, 1918. The Secretary of the Interior of the Tfnited States granted her a competency certificate thereafter on August 9, 1919. She died September 8, 1921, when about 24 years of age. This suit was filed March 7, 1925, by her heirs to cancel the deed executed by her guardian on April 12, 1910, and to obtain possession of the surface of the 40 acres of land which now appear to be a part of the town site of Burbank, Okla. The grantee named in the guardian’s deed entered into possession of the lands involved at the time of the execution of said deed, and he or his grantees have remained in possession since. Lasting and valuable improvements have been made on said lands by the defendants. At the close of the trial in the district court, judgment was rendered for defendants below, defendants in error herein. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

On October 8, 1909, Simon Fronkier, father and guardian of Blanche D. Fronkier, made application under provisions of Acts of Congress approved March 3, 1909, to sell the lands in question. He agreed to abide by rules and regulations and with the orders of the Secretary of the Interior. On October 16, 1909; Hugh Pitzer, Superintendent of the Osage Indian Agency at Pawhuska, transmitted this application to the Secretary of the Interior, with recommendation that “application be approved and the land sold in such manner as the Department may direct.” On October 28, *2 1909, J. George Wright, Commissioner to tlie Five Civilized Tribes, at Muskogee, forwarded a communication to tlie Secretary of tlie Interior at Washington, with reference to said sale, stating that he had ascertained “that the land is needed for town-site pur poses.” and further stating:

“I, therefore, respectfully recommend that authority he granted said guardian to dispose of the 40 acres described belonging to said minor, the sale to be made through and under the supervision of the probate court of Osage county, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.”

On November 6, 1909, F. H. Abbott, Acting Commissioner .of Indian Affairs at Washington, transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior the application of Simon Fronkier, with the notation, “all the papers in the case are transmitted herewith,” and with the further statement:

“It is recommended that authority be granted the legal guardian to dispose of the lands described in the application to the highest and best bidder, for cash, after advertisement as required by the statutes of Oklahoma for the sale of the lands of a minor, not less than 30 days, the sale to be subject to the approval of the probate court of Osa'ge county, the deed to conform to the requirements of this office 'and to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior; in all other respects, the sale to conform to the approved regulations governing the sale of Osage surplus lands, the proceeds to be disposed of in such manner as the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may direct.”

On February 17, 1910, Hugh Pitzer, Superintendent of the Osage Indian Agency at Pawhuska, wrote the Commissioner of Indian Affairs at Washington as follows:

“Sir: Referring- to office letter under above subject and reference dated November 15, 1909, I have the honor to transmit herewith guardian deed executed by Simon Fronkier, guardian of Blanche L. Fronkier, conveying (land described) to Ret Millard, the consideration being $1,200.
“There are also enclosed herewith certified copies of the petition to sell real estate, decree of sale of real estate, affidavit of publication of notice of sale, additional bond in the sum of $1,000, return of sale of real estate, order for hearing return of said sale, of real estate, notice of hearing of said return of sale of said real estate, and proof of said notice and the order confirming said sale.
“As this sale was apparently conducted in a fair and impartial manner, as I consider the consideration mentioned in said deed a fair consideration for said tract of land, I recommend that the guardian’s deed be approved.”

On March 25, 1910, thereafter, the guardian’s deed was duly approved by the Secretary of the interior, conveying the lands in question to Ret Millard, and by mesne conveyances title to the same was transferred to the various defendants herein. On March 3, 1909, Congress passed an act, making it possible for the lands of the members of the Osage Tribe to be sold under such rules and regulations as prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The applicable portion of that act reads as follows :

“An act authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to sell part or all of the surplus lands of members of the Kaw or Kansas and Osage Ti-ibes of Indians in Oiklahoma, and for other purposes.
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that the Secretary of the Interior be, and he hereby is, authorized and empowered, upon application, to sell, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, part or all of the surplus lands of any member of the Kaw or Kansas and Osage Tribes of Indians in Oklahoma; provided, that the sales of the Osage lands shall be subject to the reserved rights of the tribe in the oil, gas, and other minerals.”

Pursuant to the authority granted in said act, certain rules and regulations were prescribed and promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior, setting forth the manner in which the sale of surplus lands of minor Osages should be made. One of these rules applicable to this case is section 3 of the rules and regulations approved February 9, 1910, which reads as follows:

“Section 3. The sale of surplus lands of minor Osages shall conform to the requirements of the laws of Oklahoma pertaining to the sale of lands of minors in the following particulars: The sale of the lands shall be authorized by the county court of the county where the lands are situated, the manner of publication of notice of sale, provided that not less than 30 days’ notice shall be given, and the sale shall be subject to confirmation and approval by the county court. In all other respects the sale shall conform to the requirements of these regulations, namely, the guardian shall first obtain the consent of the Secretary of the Interior to make the sale, the deed shall be executed on an approved form and shall be subject to the Secretary’s approval, and the proceeds of the sale shall be subject *3 to the direction of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.”

This brings ns to a consideration of this question: Did the guardian’s deed to Ret Millard, approved by the Secretary of the Interior March 25, 1910, and delivered to the grantee May 5, 1910, vest legal and equitable title to the surface of the 40 acres of lands in question? The procedure followed in the county court is not attacked by the plaintiffs.

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

Related

United States v. MacDaniel
32 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1833)
Central Trust Co. v. Central Trust Co. of Ill.
216 U.S. 251 (Supreme Court, 1910)
Haas v. Henkel
216 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1910)
March Oil Co. v. Lee
1924 OK 1153 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Johnson v. Kennecott Copper Corp.
5 Alaska 571 (D. Alaska, 1916)
In re Shreve
103 A. 683 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1933 OK 323, 22 P.2d 75, 164 Okla. 1, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gentry-v-mccurry-okla-1933.