Home/Supreme Court/Winebrenner v. Forney

Winebrenner v. Forney

189 U.S. 148, 23 S. Ct. 590, 47 L. Ed. 754, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1338
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 6, 1903
Docket409
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 189 U.S. 148 (Winebrenner v. Forney) 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
Winebrenner v. Forney, 189 U.S. 148, 23 S. Ct. 590, 47 L. Ed. 754, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1338 (1903).

Opinion

*149 Mr. Justice Brewer,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The President’s proclamation, after reciting that the Cherokee Nation of Indians had “ ceded, conveyed, transferred, relinquished and surrendered all its title, claim and interest of every kind and character in and to that part of the Indian Territory bounded on the west by the one hundredth degree (100°) of west longitude; on the north by the State,of Kansas; on the east by the ninety-sixth degree (96°) of west longitude; and on the south by the Creek Nation, the Territory of Oklahoma and the Cheyenne and Arapahoe reservation created or defined by executive order dated August tenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-nine; ” and also that Congress had passed an act authorizing the President of the United States to open to settlement any or all lands included in such cession not allotted or reserved, declared that on September 16, 1893, the lands so acquired would be open to settlement, saving and excepting certain specified tracts and portions, including in the latter the Osage, the Kansas, the Ponca, the Otoe and Missouri reservations. The diagram on the following page shows in a general way the land first above described as ceded and relinquished by the Cherokee Indians, the land opened to settlement, and the excepted reservations. The proclamation declared that the land should be opened to settlement “ under the terms of and subject to all the conditions, limitations, reservations, and restrictions contained in said agreements, the statutes above specified, the laws of the. United States applicable thereto and the conditions prescribed by this proclamation.” The act of 1893, 27 Stat. 640, 643, which is one of the statutes referred to, contained this provision:

“No person shall be permitted to occupy or enter upon any of the lands herein referred to, except in the manner prescribed by the proclamation of the President opening the same to settlement; and any person otherwise occupying or entering upon any of said lands shall forfeit all right to acquire any of said lands. The Secretary of the Interior shall, under the direction of the President, prescribe rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this act, for the occupation and settlement of
*150 gIXlwEUaTs5IcTQkkmjxUFInLr

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

Related

John Early v. Eastern Transfer
699 F.2d 552 (First Circuit, 1983)
CMG v. State
594 P.2d 798 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1979)
C. M. G. v. State
1979 OK CR 39 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1979)
Board of Com'rs of Oklahoma County v. Ryan
1924 OK 1075 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Lange v. New York Life Insurance
162 S.W. 589 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
Mutual Life Ins. v. New
51 So. 61 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1909)
Saylor v. Frantz
1906 OK 36 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1906)
McCalla v. Acker
200 U.S. 613 (Supreme Court, 1906)
McCalla v. Acker
1904 OK 107 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1904)
Mutual Life Insurnace v. Hill
193 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 U.S. 148, 23 S. Ct. 590, 47 L. Ed. 754, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winebrenner-v-forney-scotus-1903.