Summers v. Spybuck

1 Kan. 394
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedSeptember 15, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 1 Kan. 394 (Summers v. Spybuck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Summers v. Spybuck, 1 Kan. 394 (kan 1863).

Opinion

By the Court,

Cobb, C. J.

The judgment of the court below was for the partition of land which, under the Wyandotte treaty of January 31st, 1855, was allotted and assigned to John Pipe by the commissioners appointed pursuant to article [413]*413third of that treaty, he being a member of that tribe placed in the competent class by said commissioners, and the head of a family, consisting of himself, Mary Pipe, his wife, and Maria and Winfield Pipe, his minor children by a former wife.

He had received a patent for the land so assigned purporting to convey it all to him, pursuant to the treaty, in fee simple absolute.

The plaintiffs in error claim to hold all the land under a trust deed made by John Pipe to them, to secure the payment of a sum of money which at the time of the trial was still unpaid.

George Spybuck and James Spybuck claim as heirs of Mary Pipe, who died childless, and Marie and Winfield Pipe,. as members of the Wyandotte tribe, claimed to have the land conveyed to their father, as head of the family, partitioned, and to hold each one-fourth thereof.

The court held that John Pipe took and held title to the land, one-fourth to his own use and the other three-fourths in trust for Mary, Maria and Winfield Pipe respectively, and partitioned the land accordingly, leaving to the plaintiffs in error but one-fourth subject to their lien.

The only question raised by the argument is whether the competent head of a family, under that treaty, can take the title in fee simple absolute to the land allotted, assigned and patented to him according to the terms of the patent, or whether his wife and minor children, constituting his family at the time the treaty was ratified, by force of the treaty take the beneficial interest in aliquot portions, and the head of the family holds it in trust for them. The patent conveying the land in fee simple absolute, excludes the idea of a trust, and, therefore, if such trust exists it must result from the language of the treaty, and the failure of the officers of the United States to conform to it in making the conveyance. The patent pursues the language of the treaty as to the estate granted, and the sole question remains: Was the' conveyance of the land for the family in conformity with the treaty ?

[414]*414This question, on account of the amount of property to be affected by it, is quite important, and from the obscure phraseology of the treaty, very difficult to determine.

Different portions of the treaty, at first view, seem to conflict. The whole instrument must therefore be considered, and the intention of the contracting parties sought by comparison of its several parts, and in the spirit and purview of the whole.

The first article provides for abolishing the tribal organization of the Wyandottes, and making them citizens of the United States.

By the second article, the Wyandottes cede all theii’j. lands to the United States and declare that the object of the cession is that the lands, with certain exceptions, “shall be subdivided, assigned and reconveyed by patent in fee simple, in the manner hereinafter provided for, to the individuals and members of the Wyandotte nation in severalty.”

Article third provides for the survey of the lands into sections, half and quarter sections, and for the appointment of commissioners “whose duty it shall be” (in the language of the treaty,) “ to cause any additional surveys to be made that may be necessary, and to make a fair and just division and distribution of the said lands among all the individuals and members of the Wyandotte tribe, so that those assigned to or for each shall, as nearly as possible, be equal in quantity and also in value, irrespective of improvements thereon; and the division and assignment of the lands shall be so made as to include the houses and, as far as practicable, the other improvements of each person or family, be in as regular and compact a form as possible, and include those for each separate family all together. The judgment and decision of said commissioners on all questions connected with the division and assignment of the lands shall be final.

“ On the completion of the division and assignment of the lands as aforesaid, said commissioners shall cause a plat and [415]*415schedule to he made, showing the lands assigned to each family or individual, and the quantity thereof. They shall also make up carefully prepared lists of all the individuals and members of the Wyandotte tribe, those of each separate family being arranged together, which lists shall exhibit separately, first, those families, the heads oi which the commissioners, after due inquiry and consideration, shall be satisfied are sufficiently intelligent, competent and prudent to control and manage their affairs and interests, and also all persons without families; second, those families the heads of which are not competent and proper persons to be entrusted with their shares of the money payable under this agreement; and third, those who are orphans, idiots, or insane.”

The language used in the second article, “the individuals and members of the Wyandotte nation,” standing alone would clearly include all persons of that tribe, infant members of families and married women as well as others, and entitled each to a share of the land, to be subdivided, but by the language of the same article, the land is to be subdivided, assigned and reconveyed by patent in fee simple “ in the manner hereinafter provided,” and thus we are referred to subsequent parts of the treaty to ascertain the true meaning of this.

By article third, above cited, the commissioners are required to make a fair and just division and distribution of the said lands among all the individuals and members of the Wyandotte tribe, so that those assigned- to or for each shall, as nearly as possible, be equal, &c.

This language imports that a portion of the “ individuals and members ” are to have land assigned to them and others for them.

The schedule and plat to be made by the commissioners is to show “the lands assigned to each family or individual.”

They are not required to show what land they have assigned to each member of a family as a unit, but to the family as a [416]*416unit, and the “individuals” alluded to must- of course be persons not members of families. ( The language used seems to admit of no other construction.

There are no means provided in the - treaty by which the commissioner of Indian affairs, who is to advise as to the issuing of patents or the officer who is to issue them, can know what particular land (if any) are assigned to the several members of families, and therefore no conveyance to them could be made.

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

Related

Meeker v. Kaelin
173 F. 216 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Washington, 1909)
Sempel v. Northern Hardwood Lumber Co.
121 N.W. 23 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1909)
Hicks v. Butrick
12 F. Cas. 114 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas, 1875)
Parker v. Winsor
5 Kan. 362 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Kan. 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summers-v-spybuck-kan-1863.