Hickey v. United States

64 F.2d 628, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4173
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedMarch 28, 1933
Docket738
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 64 F.2d 628 (Hickey v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hickey v. United States, 64 F.2d 628, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4173 (10th Cir. 1933).

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

The United States brought this action against J. G. Shoun to- recover certain funds . held by him as guardian of Frank Hickey.

During the pendency of the action, Frank Hickey arrived at his majority and filed therein his intervening petition, in which he claimed the funds in the hands of Shoun. The ease was disposed of on motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The pleadings disclose the following undisputed facts: Frank Hickey is a son of Adair Hickey, deceased. He was born September 21, 1910, subsequently to the Allotment Act, and was not an allotted member of the Osage Tribe. On May 6, 1921, Adair Hickey, a full-blood restricted Osage allot-tee, was adjudicated an incompetent, and John L. Bird was appointed guardian of his person and estate. Bird qualified and continued to act as such guardian until the death of Adair Hickey on January 19, 1927. From the date of his appointment up to and including the September, 1924, annuity payment, all of the quarterly payments accruing to the credit of Adair Hickey were paid in full to Bird as such guardian. After the passage of the Act of February 27, 1925 (43 Stat. 1008 [25 USCA § 331 note]), Bird returned to the Secretary of the Interior the amounts paid to him as quarterly annuity payments in excess of the limitations fixed by the Act of March 3, 1921 (41 Stat. 1249). After the passage of the 3925 act, none of the quarterly payments to Bird as such guardian exceeded $1,000.

Adair Hickey was a beneficiary under the will of Hlu-ah-to-me, Osage allottee No. 123. On January 18, 1924, Bird received $15,477.-52 as Adair Hickey’s share of the estate of Hlu-ah-to-me.

On May 6, 1927, Shoun was appointed guardian of Frank Hickey, a minor, and acted in such capacity until July 7, 1931. As such guardian Shoun received from the executor of the estate of Adair Hickey: $3,712.62 in cash, real estate mortgage bonds of the par value of $5,000, and $3,322.98 as the regular quarterly annuity payments accruing to Frank Hickey.

Shoun resigned as guardian of Frank Hickey on July 7, 1931. The county court of Osage county, Oklahoma, accepted his resignation a.nd appointed Pitts Beaty to succeed him. The Secretary of the Interior refused to approve the appointment of Beaty. The funds now in the hands of Shoun came from three sources: the estates of Hlu-ah-to-me and Adair Hickey, and payments accruing to Frank Hickey. The original sources of such funds were moneys in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior which had been paid out and disbursed by him to members *630 of the Osage Tribe, or to heirs of member's of the Osage Tribe; in other words, through payments to owners of Osage headrights acquired .either through membership in the tribe or by inheritance from a member of the tribe. It follows that such funds were “theretofore under the supervision and. control of the Secretary of the Interior.”

The trial court found in favor of the United States and entered a decree against Shoun directing him to pay over the balance in his hands to the superintendent of the Osage Indian Agency on behalf of the Department of the Interior. Frank Hickey has appealed from this decree. **

The applicable statutory provisions are set out in Note l. 1

Counsel for Frank Hickey contend that under the holding of the Supreme Court in Work v. United States ex rel. Lynn, 266 U. S, 161, 45 S. Ct. 39, 69 L. Ed. 223, all of the funds that came into the hands of Bird and *631 Shoun as such guardians, except the excess payments made under the Act of March 3, 1931, which Bird had refunded, became, upon their payment to such guardians, unrestricted funds.

Section 1 of the 1925 act, after making provision for the return to the Secretary of the Intelior of amounts paid under the Act of March 3, 1921, in excess of $4,000 per annum to guardians of adult members not having certificates of competency,- continues as follows;

“All funds other than as above mentioned, and other property heretofore or hereafter received by a guardian of a member of the Osage Tribe of Indians, which was theretofore under the supervision and control of the Secretary of the Interior or the title to which was held in trust for such Indian by the United States, shall not thereby become divested of the supervision and control of the Secretary of the Interior or the United States be relieved of its trust; and such guardian shall not sell, dispose of or otherwise encumber such fund or property without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. * * * ”

The language above quoted reimposes restrictions upon and subjects to the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior all funds, in the hands of guardians of adult members not having a certificate o-f competency, which in their inception were under the supervision and control of the Secretary.

That Congress has the right to reimpose restrictions on property once freed therefrom is well settled. McCurdy v. United States, 246 U. S. 263, 38 S. Ct. 289; 62 L. Ed. 706; Taylor v. Tayrien (C. C. A. 10) 51 F.(2d) 884, 887.

The language last quoted is not limited, we think, to balances of the quarterly annuity payments in the hands of such guardians. If it was essential to subject such small balances to the supervision and control of the Secretary of the Interior, it was more essential to afford such protection to the larger amounts which had accrued to such guardians from the estates of the ancestors of their wards. "We think the plain intent of Congress was to reimpose restrictions and sub- jeot to the supervision and control of the Secretary of the Interior the funds in. the hands of guardians, which in their inception were under such supervision and control.

The funds now in the hands of Shoun in their inception were under the supervision and control of the Secretary of the Interior, and were paid by such Secretary to Hlu-ahto-me, Adair Hickey, and Frank Hickey as members of the Osage Tribe.

We conclude, therefore, that restrictions were reimposed upon such funds by the Act of February 27, 1925, and that upon the resignation of Shoun it became his duty to immediately deliver such funds to the superintendent of the Osage Indian Agency.

Affirmed.

1

Note 1. — Section 4, Act of June 28, 1906 (34 Stat. 539, 544), in part reads as follows:

“That all funds belonging to the Osage tribe, and all moneys due, and all moneys that may become due, or may hereafter be found to be due tbe said Osage tribe of Indians, shall be held in trust by the United States for the period of twenty-five years from and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and seven, except as herein provided:

“First.

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

Related

Quincy v. Texas Co.
185 F.2d 139 (Tenth Circuit, 1951)
Murray v. Ned
135 F.2d 407 (Tenth Circuit, 1943)
Burgess v. Nail
103 F.2d 37 (Tenth Circuit, 1939)
Whitchurch v. Crawford
92 F.2d 249 (Tenth Circuit, 1937)
United States v. Carson
19 F. Supp. 616 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1937)
United States v. Johnson
87 F.2d 155 (Tenth Circuit, 1936)
Williams v. Clinton
83 F.2d 143 (Tenth Circuit, 1936)
United States v. Barnett
7 F. Supp. 573 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1934)
United States v. Hughes
6 F. Supp. 972 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 F.2d 628, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickey-v-united-states-ca10-1933.