Woodtick v. Crosby

Opinion

No. 12981

I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN

CEDRIC WOODTICK, a /k/a CEDRIC PLBINFEATHER,

P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

RODNEY TJ. CROSBY ,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant :

Towe, Neely and B a l l , B i l l i n g s , Montana Thomas E. Towe argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana

For Respondent :

Hibbs, Sweeney and Colberg, B i l l i n g s , Montana William T. Wagner argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana

Submitted: September 29, 1975

Decided: a;, ; " I ;JL% F ! ~ - A / Mr., J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

T h i s i s an a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Big Horn County, from a f i n a l judgment d i s m i s s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint f o r l a c k of s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . P l a i n t i f f , a competent Crow I n d i a n , was i s s u e d a p a t e n t i n f e e simple on October 13, 1971 t o land s i t u a t e w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries o f t h e Crow I n d i a n Reservation. Subse-- q u e n t l y , by warranty deed d a t e d October 29, 1971, p l a i n t i f f con- veyed t h i s land t o Rodney L. Crosby, a non-Indian. By h i s complaint, f i l e d J u l y 23, 1974, p l a i n t i f f s e e k s c a n c e l l a t i o n of t h e deed given Crosby a l l e g i n g t h a t b y t h i s deed Crosby became t h e non-Indian owner of more a c r e a g e of land w i t h i n t h e Crow I n d i a n Reservation than p e r m i t t e d under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of S e c t i o n 2, Act of June 4 , 1920 (41 S t a t . 751), and, t h e r e f o r e , pursuant t o t h e e x p l i c i t language of t h a t Act, t h e deed was void. By motion on August 30, 1974, defendant Crosby moved t o d i s m i s s t h e complaint on grounds t h a t t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e a r e w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y . By o r d e r d a t e d December 6 , 1974, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d de- f e n d a n t ' s motion t o dismiss. The land which i s t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of t h i s c a s e l i e s e n t i r e l y w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h e Crow I n d i a n Reser- vation. A s such, Montana s t a t e c o u r t s have j u r i s d i c t i o n over i t o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t g r a n t e d by Congress. Section 4 ( 2 ) of Montana's Enabling Act (25 S t a t . 676), under which P4ontana w a s admitted t o t h e Union and i t s C o n s t i t u t i o n adopted, provides: h hat t h e people * ** [of ~ o n t a n a ]* * *do a g r e e and d e c l a r e t h a t t h e y f o r e v e r d i s c l a i m a l l r i g h t and t i t l e t o t h e unappropriated p u b l i c l a n d s l y i n g w i t h i n t h e boundaries t h e r e o f , and t o a l l l a n d s l y i n g w i t h i n s a i d l i m i t s owned o r h e l d by any I n d i a n o r Indian t r i b e s ; and t h a t u n t i l t i t l e t h e r e t o s h a l l l~ave been e x t i n g u i s h e d by t h e United S t a t e s *** s a i d Indian l a n d s s h a l l remain under t h e a b s o l u t e j u r i s d i c t i o n and c o n t r o l of t h e Congress oi- t h e United S t a t e s J; 9 9c." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) :

I d e n t i c a l language i s contained i n Ordinance No. 1, 52, Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1889. A r t i c l e I , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u - t i o n provides t h a t b o t h t h e Enabling Act and Ordinance No. 1 a r e t o "continue i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t u n t i l revoked by t h e con- s e n t of t h e United S t a t e s and t h e people o f Montana. II

By t h e Crow I n d i a n Allotment Act of June 4 , 1920 (41 S t a t . 751), a s amended by t h e Act of May 26, 1926 (44 S t a t . 6581, Con- g r e s s undertook a l l o t m e n t of Crow Reservation l a n d s among members of t h e Crow T r i b e . S e c t i o n 1 of t h e Act provides f o r a l l o t m e n t s i n s e v e r a l t y t o be evidenced by " p a t e n t s i n f e e t o competent Indians + : * * but by t r u s t p a t e n t t o minors and incompetent I n d i a n s , t h e f o r c e and l e g a l e f f e c t of t h e t r u s t p a t e n t s t o b e a s i s p r e s c r i b e d by t h e General Allotment Act of February 8 , 1887, a s amended. (Twenty-fourth S t a t u t e s a t Large, page 388)", now 25 United S t a t e s Code, 5 5 348,349. S e c t i o n 348 e s s e n t i a l l y provides t h a t t h e United S t a t e s i s t o hold l e g a l t i t l e t o t h e a l l o t t e d l a n d s "in t r u s t " and con- t i n u e t o e x e r c i s e i t s e x c l u s i v e g u a r d i a n s h i p d u t i e s over t h e a l l o t t e e and h i s l a n d s f o r a p e r i o d of 25 y e a r s . S e c t i o n 349 f u r - t h e r provides t h a t a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e 25 y e a r p e r i o d , o r sooner i f t h e S e c r e t a r y of t h e I n t e r i o r determines t h a t a given 11 allottee is competent and capable of managing h i s o r h e r a f f a i r s f 1 , a f e e p a t e n t i s t o i s s u e whereupon "* * * each and every a l l o t t e e s h a l l have t h e b e n e f i t of and be s u b j e c t t o t h e laws, both c i v i l and c r i m i n a l , o f t h e S t a t e JC * i n which t h e y may r e s i d e ** ;kl'.

The United S t a t e s Supreme Court has h e l d t h a t upon i s s u a n c e of a f e e p a t e n t t o t h e I n d i a n , q u e s t i o n s a r i s i n g t h e r e - a f t e r p e r t a i n i n g t o t i t l e f a l l w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e s t a t e courts. Dickson v. Luck Land Co., 242 U.S. 371, 37 S.Ct. 167, 6 1 L ed 371; Larkin v.laugh, 276 U.S. 431, 48 S.Ct. 366, 72 L ed 640, 644, 645. A s observed i n Larkin: "F7ith t h e i s s u e of t h e p a t e n t , t h e t i t l e n o t o n l y passed from t h e United S t a t e s b u t t h e p r i o r t r u s t and i n c i d e n t a l r e s t r i c t i o n a g a i n s t a l i e n a t i o n were terminated. This put an end t o t h e a u t h o r i t y t h e r e t o f o r e possessed by t h e S e c r e t a r y o f t h e I n - t e r i o r by r e a s o n of t h e t r u s t and r e s t r i c t i o n -- so t h a t t h e r e a f t e r a l l questions pertaining t o the t i t l e were s u b j e c t t o examination and determina- t i o n by t h e c o u r t s , a p p r o p r i a t e l y t h o s e i n Nebraska, t h e land b e i n g t h e r e . * * >k

"t7e a r e o f t h e opinion t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e r e was n o t h i n g i n t h e c o n g r e s s i o n a l s t a t u t e s t o prevent t h e l o c a l c o u r t from t a k i n g and e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s - * d i c t i o n of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s s u i t Jc brought a f t e r t h e i s s u e of t h e f e e simple p a t e n t . * a" P l a i n t i f f h a s r e c e i v e d a p a t e n t i n f e e simple. A t this p o i n t i t appears t h a t t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n g e n e r a l l y a s it applies t o Indians resides i n the s t a t e courts. However, t h e p o i n t of d i f f e r e n c e and t h e l e g a l i s s u e presented t o t h i s Court concerns t h e e f f e c t , i f any, t h e Crow I n d i a n Allotment Act of June 4 , 1920 (41 S t a t . 751) has on s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . t h e p e r t i n e n t p a r t of S e c t i o n 2 o f t h e Act p r o h i b i t s and d e c l a r e s void any conveyance of f e e p a t e n t land by a Crow Indian t o any person, company o r c o r p o r a t i o n who owns more than 1,280 a c r e s of g r a z i n g l a n d , o r who by such conveyance would become t h e owner o f more than 1,920 a c r e s of g r a z i n g l a n d , w i t h i n t h e boundaries of t h e Crow I n d i a n Reservation. Act of June 4 , 1920, Sec. 2 (41 S t a t . 751). By t h e Act of June 8 , 1940, only t h o s e conveyances t o non-Indians owning i n excess of t h e p r o h i b i t e d a c r e a g e s a r e now p r o h i b i t e d . (54 S t a t . 252). Defendant a r g u e s t h a t because o f t h e Crow I n d i a n Allotment Act t h e f e d e r a l r e s t r i c t i o n s have simply n o t been terminated. Thus, t h e c a s e s above c i t e d a r e recognized by defendant b u t d i s t i n g u i s h e d on t h e grounds t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s of t h e Crow Allotment Act were n o t involved i n t h o s e c a s e s . Defendant goes on t o a r g u e t h a t i n t h i s e v e n t p l a i n t i f f must meet t h e c o n d i t i o n s of S t a t e ex r e l . I r o n Bear v. D i s t r i c t Court, 162 Mont. 335, 512 P.2d 1292 and r e l a t e d c a s e s , o r f a i l i n h i s a t t e m p t t o e s t a b l i s h j u r i s - diction i n the s t a t e court. A c a s e c i t e d by p l a i n t i f f a s p r i n c i p a l a u t h o r i t y b u t n o t d i s c u s s e d by defendant i s D i l l o n v. A n t l e r Land Company, 341 F. Supp. 734, 740, 741, (D.C. Mont. 1972), a f f i r m e d 507 F.2d 940 ( 9 t h C i r . 1974). I n D i l l o n t h e Crow I n d i a n a t t e m p t s t o s e t a s i d e a conveyance of I n d i a n l a n d s conveyed i n 1955 a f t e r r e c e i v i n g a p a t e n t and t h e elements o f t h e f r a u d complained of were known a s e a r l y a s 1956. Judge R u s s e l l E. Smith, a f t e r mentioning o t h e r grounds and r e c o g n i z i n g an a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f t h e Crow I n d i a n Allotment Act, h e l d t h e c l a i m f o r r e l i e f b a r r e d by t h e Montana s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . Judge Smith h e l d d i r e c t l y t h a t t h e r e i s no c o n f l i c t w i t h 25 U.S.C., 5 349, which d e c l a r e s a l l r e s t r i c t i o n s , e t c . s h a l l be removed w i t h i s s u e of p a t e n t . He s t a t e d "* * fc the e f f e c t of Section 2 o f t h e Crow Act was t o l i m i t t h e power of a buyer t o buy. The I n d i a n was n o t forbidden t o s e l l ; t h e p e n a l t y w a s d i r e c t e d s o l e l y a t t h e buyer." I n h i s d i s c u s s i o n Judge Smith comments t h a t t h e market was l i m i t e d b u t t h i s i s t r u e i n o t h e r comparable i n s t a n c e s a s w e l l . F u r t h e r , t h e Court h e l d : "The General A.llotment Act throughout i t s h i s t o r y h a s and t h e Crow Act does d i s t i n g u i s h t h e competent from t h e i n c o m ~ e t e n tI n d i a n and t h e t r u s t l a n d s from t h e f e e lands. S t a t e law c o n t r o l s h e r e because Congress has e x p l i c i t l y s a i d t h a t i t does. The language of 25 U.S.C. 5 349 i s ? * when t h e l a n d s have been conveyed t o t h e ; I n d i a n s by p a t e n t i n f e e *** then each and every a l l o t t e e s h a l l have t h e b e n e f i t of and be s u b j e c t t o t h e laws, b o t h c i v i l and c r i m i n a l , of t h e S t a t e * * *'. "The p a t e n t e x i s t s . It has n o t been c a n c e l l e d . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) Judge Smith f u r t h e r commented i n D i l l o n : "The i s s u a n c e o f t h e f e e p a t e n t had a broader e f f e c t than merely t o f r e e p l a i n t i f f t o s e l l h e r l a n d - - i t f r e e d t h e United S t a t e s from i t s t r u s t e e d u t i e s and a l t e r e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e land and p l a i n t i f f t o t h e S t a t e of Montana. 11 He c i t e d t h e Montana Enabling Act (25 S t a t . 676), and Montana Power Co. v. Rochester, 127 F.2d 189 ( 9 t h C i r . 1942). The Ninth C i r c u i t a f f i r m e d Judge Smith i n a l l p a r t i c u l a r s and a l s o c i t e d Montana Power Co. v. Rochester, 127 F.2d 189, 192, which s t a t e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s t a t u t e on t h e i s s u e of f e e p a t e n t s : I1 The obvious purpose of t h e p r o v i s i o n i s t o d e f i n e t h e s t a t u s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l I n d i a n s i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o t h e s t a t e . Having been r e l e a s e d from t u t e l a g e , t h e I n d i a n s a r e t h e r e a f t e r t o be regarded a s members o f t h e community w i t h t h e p r i v i l e g e s and d u t i e s i n c i d e n t t o citizenship. r1 The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court has been d i r e c t l y r u l e d upon and decided by t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s , t h e r e f o r e f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n i s unnecessary p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e b o t h f i r m s of a t t o r n e y s i n t h i s m a t t e r appeared i n t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h e proceeding i n Dillon. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e cause remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings on t h e m e r i t s n o t i n c o n e i s t e n t with t h i s opinion,

W Concur: e Y 4 @ ( d /$ * f I" i:*!,+#f>' .2d , f t t , ,". La i.***,. : Chief J u s t i c e