Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

which is essential to the impeachment of the action of the Commission. This action was brought fourteen years after the enrollment of Thlocco and the allotment to him based on such enrollment should not be disturbed except for good and sufficient reasons.

It is not contended by the Government that the subsequent action of the Secretary in striking Thlocco's name from the rolls had the legal effect to accomplish that purpose. Such is the contention of the intervenors. The testimony shows that Thlocco was enrolled by the Commission on May 24, 1901, that the allotment was made and the certificate therefor issued on June 30, 1902, and that patents were recorded in the office of the Commission on April 11, 1903, the allotment certificate issued in the name of Thlocco. On August 25, 1904, the Commission transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior a communication from the Creek attorney in the nature of a motion to re-open the matter. On September 16, 1904, the Secretary of the Interior ordered further investigation, and directed that notice be given to the heirs of Thlocco of the hearing. The heirs of Thlocco were not found, and no notice was given them of the proposed hearing. On October 10, 1906, the Commission reported that the testimony showed that Thlocco died before April 1, 1899, and recommended that his name be stricken from the roll. On December 13, 1906, the Secretary directed that Thlocco's name be stricken from the roll, and requested the Attorney General to take action to set aside the allotment deeds. We think this action entirely ineffectual to annul the previous action of the Government in placing Thlocco's name upon the roll and issuing in his name the certificate and patents as we have stated. Such action could not be legally taken without notice to the heirs, and was void and of no effect. Garfield v. United States ex rel. Goldsby, 211 U. S. 249; Knapp v. Alexander-Edgar Lumber Co., 237 U. S. 162, 169. In Lowe v. Fisher, 223

[blocks in formation]

U. S. 95, the Secretary of the Interior in striking names from the roll of Cherokee citizens acted after notice and opportunity to be heard.

The fact that Thlocco was dead at the time deeds were issued in his name would not prevent the title from vesting in his heirs. Section 28 of the Act of March 1, 1901, 31 Stat. 861, 870, provides that "if any such citizen has died since that time (April 1, 1899,] or may hereafter die, before receiving his allotment of lands and distributive share of all the funds of the tribe, the lands and money to which he would be entitled, if living, shall descend to his heirs according to the laws of descent and distribution of the Creek Nation, and be allotted and distributed to them accordingly.” The effect of this provision is to vest title in the heirs by operation of law. Skelton v. Dill, 235 U. S. 206, 207, 208.

As to the contention that the lands were not selected by Thlocco, and that he was one of those arbitrarily placed upon the rolls, we think it was within the authority of the Commission to enroll members of the tribe who for any reason refused to make selections; for the statute ($ 3, 31 Stat. 861, 862) provides that "all lands of the said tribe, except as herein provided, shall be allotted among the citizens of the tribe by said commission so as to give each an equal share of the whole in value, as nearly as may be, in the manner following: There shall be allotted to each citizen one hundred and sixty acres of land-boundaries to conform to the Government survey—which may be selected by him so as to include improvements which belong to him.” While citizens were thus permitted to make their selections for the purpose of retaining improvements, it seems clear that in case any citizen failed to avail himself of this right it was permissible for the Commission to make the allotment.

We think the District Court rightly ruled that the Government had not offered evidence competent to im

244 U.S.

Counsel for Plaintiff in Error.

peach the validity of the Commission's action and thus to invalidate the title subsequently conveyed by the patent to Thlocco with the approval of the Interior Department.

It follows that the decree of the District Court, dismissing the bill, should be

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

YANKAUS v. FELTENSTEIN ET AL.

ERROR TO THE CITY COURT OF NEW YORK CITY, STATE OF

NEW YORK.

No. 407. Argued April 10, 1917.-Decided May 21, 1917.

The rule that an order of the District Court remanding a cause is con

clusive of the right to remove (Jud. Code, $ 28) and cannot be reviewed on writ of error to a subsequent judgment of the state court, applies also when the final judgment of the state court is rendered after the attempted removal and before the order of remand, if when the judgment is rendered the District Court has not assumed jurisdiction and assumes none later beyond enjoining further proceedings

until the motion to remand may be decided. Conduct of the plaintiffs in respect of proceedings in the state courts

and District Court held not to have estopped them from contesting the jurisdiction of the latter after attempted removal, or to have

waived their right to the conclusive effect of the order of remand. Affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Jesse C. Adkins, with whom Mr. Roger Foster and Mr. Frank J. Felbel were on the briefs, for plaintiff in error.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Jacob W. Hartman for defendants in error, submitted.

MR. JUSTICE Day delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error, bringing into review a judgment of the City Court of the City of New York and an order of that court denying a motion to set aside this judgment, and an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, which affirmed the order and judgment.

The action was brought in the City Court by Feltenstein and Rosenstein, hereinafter called the plaintiffs, to recover a contingent counsel fee of $500 from Yankaus, hereinafter called the defendant, and for loans of $200 and $100 respectively, in all the sum of $800. Summons and complaint were served on October 11, 1915. On October 16, 1915, the defendant filed in the office of the clerk of the City Court petition and bond for the removal of the cause to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The bond was approved by a judge of the City Court. Notice of the intention to file petition and bond was served on the plaintiffs on October 15, 1915. The ground for removal was diversity of citizenship, and it was averred that the petitioner had a counterclaim exceeding the sum of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and that therefore the matter and amount in dispute in the case exceeded that sum. On October 20, 1915, a certified copy of the record was filed in the office of the clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and an answer was filed setting up the invalidity of the agreements upon which plaintiffs' cause of action was based and asserting a counterclaim.

On October 16, 1915, plaintiffs moved in the City Court for an order setting aside the bond and the removal of the

244 U. 8.

Opinion of the Court.

cause to the United States District Court and directing that the City Court retain jurisdiction. This motion came on to be heard before a judge of the City Court on October 20, 1915, and resulted in an order setting aside the removal and determining that the action was not entitled to be removed. This decision was made upon the basis that the counterclaim could not be considered in determining the amount in dispute, in so far as to give the federal court jurisdiction. Judgment was entered on October 26, 1915, for plaintiffs. From this order and judgment appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, Appellate Term. Thereupon, the defendant moved in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for an order restraining the plaintiffs from proceeding to the enforcement of the judgment. The matter was heard before Judge Lacombe, sitting as District Judge, and on November 4, 1915, he issued an order restraining the plaintiffs until further order made on proper notice and motion to remand from in any way proceeding with or prosecuting their cause of action in the City Court or from collecting anything under any judgment entered therein. Subsequently plaintiffs moved in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for an order' remanding the case to the state court. This motion came on for hearing before Judge Hough, who granted the motion to remand and an order remanding the cause to the City Court was made on the fifteenth day of November, 1915. The defendant afterward moved in the City Court to set aside the judgment rendered while it was alleged the suit was pending in the United States court, which motion was denied.

Appeal was thereupon taken to the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, and the judgment and the order setting aside the removal and declaring that the case was still in the City Court were both affirmed. Motion was made by the plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal upon the ground

« AnteriorContinuar »