respectively. Whatever the policy of such a distinction which gives a greater freedom for the disposition by heirs of homestead lands than of the additional lands, there is no warrant for importing it into paragraph 22 where there is no such segregation. It would be manifestly inappropriate to imply the restriction in such cases so as to make it applicable to all the lands taken by the heirs, and there is no occasion, or authority, for creating a division of the lands so as to impose a restriction upon a part of them.

There being no restriction upon the right of alienation, the heirs in the cases involved in this appeal were entitled to make the conveyances. The bill alleged that the tracts embraced in these conveyances were "allotted lands," and certificates of allotment had been issued. These Indian heirs were vested with an interest in the property which in the absence of any provision to the contrary was the subject of sale. The fact that they were "full-blood" Indians makes no difference in this case for, at the time of the conveyances in question, heirs of the full-blood taking under the provisions of paragraph 22 of the supplemental agreement had the same right of alienation as other heirs.

It does not appear from the allegations of the bill whether patents for the lands had been issued to the Indian grantors before the conveyances were made. But as the lands had been duly allotted, the right to patent was established; and there was no restriction in cases under paragraph 22 upon alienation of the lands prior to the date of patent. There was undoubtedly a complete equitable interest which, in the absence of restriction, the owner could convey. Doe v. Wilson, 23 How. 457; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352; Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1, 15-18. And any contention that the conveyances were invalid, solely because they were made before the issuance of patent-the lands not being under restriction-would be met by the proviso contained in § 19 of the act of

April 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 137, 144, c. 1876: "Provided further, That conveyances heretofore made by members of any of the Five Civilized Tribes subsequent to the selection of allotment and subsequent to removal of restriction, where patents thereafter issue, shall not be deemed or held invalid solely because said conveyances were made prior to issuance and recording or delivery of patent or deed; but this shall not be held or construed as affecting the validity or invalidity of any such conveyance, except as hereinabove provided; and every deed executed before, or for the making of which a contract or agreement was entered into before the removal of restrictions, be and the same is hereby, declared void.”

We are therefore of the opinion that the bill is without equity as against the appellants for the reason that the conveyances were not executed in violation of any restrictions imposed by Congress, and that the demurrer should have been sustained upon this ground. It follows that, with respect to the appellants, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be reversed and that of the Circuit Court affirmed.

It is so ordered.

GOAT v. UNITED STATES.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

No. 405. Argued October 12, 13, 1911.-Decided April 29, 1912.

Heckman v. United States, ante, p. 413, followed to effect that the United States has capacity to maintain a suit in equity to set aside conveyances of allotted lands made by allottee Indians in violation of statutory restrictions.

The question in this case is: What are the restrictions in the case of allotments to Seminole freedmen?

The relations of the United States to Seminole freedmen by treaties and statutes reviewed, and held that the United States is entitled to maintain an action to set aside all conveyances made by Seminole freedmen of homestead lands, of surplus lands made by minor allottees, and by adult allottees if made prior to April 21, 1904; but that such an action cannot be maintained as to conveyances made by adult allottees after April 21, 1904.

179 Fed. Rep. 13, modified and affirmed as to this point.

THE facts, which involve the validity of certain conveyances of allotted lands made by Seminole Indians and also the right of the United States to have such conveyances set aside, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. J. C. Stone, Mr. Robert J. Boone and Mr. S. T. Bledsoe, with whom Mr. Geo. C. Crump, Mr. H. H. Rogers, Mr. J. H. Maxey, Mr. J. H. Miley and Mr. B. B. Blakeney were on the brief, for appellants.1

The Solicitor General and Mr. A. N. Frost and Mr. Harlow A. Leekley, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, for the United States.1

MR. JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the court.

The question presented by this appeal is with respect to the right of Seminole freedmen to convey the lands allotted to them in severalty pursuant to the act of July 1, 1898, c. 542, 30 Stat. 567. The United States sued to cancel conveyances alleged to have been made contrary to the statute. Demurrer to the bill was sustained by the Circuit Court, and its judgment was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. Allen, and similar cases, 179 Fed. Rep. 13. So far as the demurrer contested the capacity of the United States to bring a suit of this character, the case stands upon the same footing, in all 1 See abstract of arguments in Heckman v. United States, ante, p. 413.

material respects, as that of Heckman v. United States, ante, p. 413, and the right of the United States to enforce such restrictions as may have been imposed upon the alienation of the allotted lands is no longer open to dispute.

The inquiry must be, What are the restrictions in the case of allotments to Seminole freedmen, and have they been violated?

As to each of the tracts of land in question, it was alleged:

"And your orator further shows that each of the tracts of land hereinafter, in paragraph numbered six, described is situated in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, and was, at the time of the transactions of sale or incumbrance mentioned in that paragraph, allotted lands of the members of the Seminole tribe of Indians, allotted to freedman members of said tribe, and none were lands which had been patented to individuals at the time of the transactions in question; that they were not lands of heirs of allottees; that all contracts for the sale, disposition of any of said allotments prior to the date of patent were expressly, declared by law, to be void; that this law applied to all allotments of Seminole lands not inherited from allottees; that accordingly, defendants had knowledge and were, by said law, put upon inquiry and notice as to the inalienability of said unpatented lands, and had notice accordingly that the particular tracts had not been patented, any such patenting being a matter of public record and of public action; that moreover, the unpatented condition of said allotted lands was notorious and of common knowledge, since none of the Seminole allotted lands have been patented; and that other public laws of Congress and public agreements imposed further restrictions upon the transfer and incumbrance of the particular lands herein, in paragraph six, described, belonging to the particular class of tribal members herein

mentioned, in addition to those arising from the absence of patenting, and these restrictions were known, notified and notorious in like manner."

While it appears that a large number of conveyances are involved in the suit, only two are specifically described in the printed record on this appeal, the descriptions of the others, as set forth in the bill, having been omitted by stipulation. In the two cases particularly mentioned, the conveyances were made in August, 1906, and March, 1907. It is not stated whether the lands, embraced therein, were homestead or so-called "surplus" lands, but it is conceded in argument that they were of the latter class. The Government says in its brief: "In the printed record it happens that the transactions set out include only lands allotted other than homestead, but other transactions complained of in the bill, omitted from the printed record for the sake of brevity, include lands allotted as homesteads as well." The broad ground is taken by the Government that all conveyances of the lands allotted to members of the Seminole tribe are void because made prior to the date of patent.

By the treaty of 1832 (7 Stat. 368) the Seminoles relinquished to the United States their claim to the lands then occupied in the territory of Florida and agreed to emigrate to the lands assigned to the Creeks west of the Mississippi, it being understood that an additional extent of territory proportioned to their numbers should "be added to the Creek country," and that they should be received "as a constituent part of the Creek Nation." Provision to this effect was made in the Creek treaty of 1833 (7 Stat. 417, 419), which was satisfactory to the Seminoles, and territory was assigned to them accordingly. 7 Stat. 423. There were further agreements in 1845 (9 Stat. 821) and in 1856 (11 Stat. 699). In 1866 (14 Stat. 755), lands which had been ceded to the Seminoles by the Creeks were conveyed to the United States at a stipulated price;