Hawkins v. Okla Oil Co.

195 F. 345, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5453
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma
DecidedDecember 29, 1911
DocketNo. 1,121
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 195 F. 345 (Hawkins v. Okla Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hawkins v. Okla Oil Co., 195 F. 345, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5453 (E.D. Okla. 1911).

Opinion

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This cause is a suit by the plaintiff, as guardian of Grade Hawkins, a minor, for the recovery of damages from the defendants for the alleged unauthorized taking of oil from a certain tract of land, in which it is alleged the said minor has an interest. The case was tried to the court, jury having been formally waived. Pursuant to ruling made at the trial, the only question now for consideration is whether or not the heirs of one Elijah Corbray, deceased, in whose name the land was originally selected (he having died in May, 1899, intestate, and before selection) had capacity after April 21, 1904, to alienate that part of the allotment set apart, allotted, and patented to the said heirs as a homestead.

The deceased and the heirs were all Creek freedmen. The land was allotted to the heirs in 1901 in two separate tracts, one as homestead and the other as surplus, and in 1904 patents were issued to the heirs, one for the surplus and one for the homestead.

If, under the circumstances of this case, there was no authority of law for allotting a separate homestead portion, and the entire allotment should have passed, and in legal effect did pass, to the heirs with the status of surplus rather than homestead land, then by the act of April 21, .1904 (chapter 1402, 33 Stat. 189) it was relieved of all restrictions, not only as to that designated surplus, but also as to that designated homestead.

It was the custom of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes in making these allotments to designate a certain 40 acres out of each allotment as a homestead, and to have patents issued accordingly, whether the allotment was selected during the lifetime of the member in whose name it was made, or whether it was not selected until after his death, in which case the allotment was made to the heirs. As this land was allotted in 1901, the provisions of law under which it was allotted are found in the Original Creek Agreement (chapter 676, 31 Stat. 861). The first section of this agreement defines several of the terms used. The second section provides for appraisement of the land as a basis for classification for the purpose of allotment. The third section provides that the land shall be allotted among the citizens of the tribe so as to give each an equal share of the whole in value, as nearly as may be, and in order to accomplish this it was provided that there should be allotted to each citizen 160 acres, so selected by him as to include his improvements, if any. Section 4 provided that the allotment for a minor might be selected by his father, mother, or guardian, and those for prisoners, convicts, aged, and infirm persons, by their duly appointed agents; and if incompetents, by guardians, curators, or suitable persons akin to them. Section 5 has relation to the disposition of improvements any citizen may have on lands in excess of his allotment. Section 6 confirms allotments made prior to the agreement, and authorizes the Commission to deterine controversies arising between citizens as to their right to select certain tracts of land. Section 7 provides:

“Lands allotted to citizens hereunder shall not in any manner whatsoever or at any time be incumbered, taken, or sold to secure or satisfy any débt or obligation contracted or incurred prior to the date of the deed to the allottee [347]*347therefor, and such lands shall not he alienable by the allottee or Ms heirs at any time before the expiration of live years from the ratification of this agreement, except with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Each citizen shall select from his allotment forty acres of land asa homestead, which shall be nontaxable and inalienable and free from any incumbrance whatever for twenty-one years, for which he shall have a separate deed, conditioned as above: Provided, that selections of homesteads for minors, prisoners, convicts, incompetents, and aged and infirm persons, who cannot select for themselves, may be made in the manner herein provided for the selection of their allotments; and if, for any reason, such selection be not made for any citizen it shall be the duty of said Commission to make selection for Mm. The homestead of each citizen shall remain, after the death of the allottee, for the use and support of children born to him after the ratification of this agreement, but if he have no such issue, then he may dispose of his homestead by will, free from limitation herein imposed, and if this be not done, the land shall descend to Ms heirs, according to the laws of descent and distribution of the Creek Nation, free from such limitation.”

The first paragraph of the section, it appears, places a general restriction against alienation for a term of five years upon all the lands allotted to citizens under this agreement, except with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The second paragraph provides that each citizen shall select from his allotment a homestead of 40 acres, which shall be nontaxable, inalienable, and free from incumbrance for 21 years, and for which a separate patent shall issue. In case the allottee be a minor, convict, incompetent, or aged and infirm person, and therefore unable to select his own homestead, selection may be made in the manner provided in section 4 for the selection of allotments, and in case such selection be not made for any citizen, it becomes the duty of the Commission to make selection for him. The third paragraph provides for the disposition of the homestead upon the death of the allottee.

It is clear that up to this point the scheme of allotment provided contemplates that the several members of the tribe shall be alive and in being at the time the division of the lands provided for comes to be actually made. It contemplates in such instance but one allottee— not several—for each separate allotment. Up to this point, it is referred to as his allotment; “each citizen shall select from his allotment 40 acres of land as a homestead, * * * for which he shall have a separate deed. * * * The homestead of each citizen shall remain, after the death of the allottee, for the use of children horn to him, * * * ” etc. But if there be no such children, then he may dispose of his homestead by will, and if this be not done, the land shall descend to his heirs, etc. It is clear that this homestead provision contemplates a living member of the tribe, who is taking his allotment and for whose protection against his own profligacy or lack of business experience or ability in the face of the conditions surrounding him, the homestead portion is secured to him for 21 years, or for such less time as he may continue to live. Section 8 of the agreement provides how the allottee shall be placed in the possession of his allotment, and section 9 provides for the disposition of the residue of the lands after completion of the allotments, etc. Sections 10 to 22, inclusive, have reference to town sites. Section 23 provides for the issuance of patent to each individual allottee cover[348]*348ing his allotment. Subsequent sections up to 28 have reference to matters foreign to this inquiry. Section 28 provides:

“No person, except as herein provided, shall be added to the rolls of citizenship of said tribe after the date of this agreement, and no person whomsoever shall be added to said rolls after the ratification of this agreement.

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

Related

Parks v. Love
1915 OK 618 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Iowa Land & Trust Co. v. Dawson
1913 OK 404 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Manuel v. Smith Et Vir.
1913 OK 105 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Parkinson v. Skelton
1912 OK 711 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 F. 345, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-okla-oil-co-oked-1911.