- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
UNITED STATES v. WALTERS, (D.Minn. 1926)
Summary of Opinion: United States v. Walters et al., No. 138 (D. Minn. Mar. 23, 1926)
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an equity suit brought by the United States against George Walters and others to quiet title to certain lands in Becker County, Minnesota, and to cancel attempted conveyances. The lands had been allotted prior to July 21, 1902, to Shay-now-e-gwon-abe, a full-blood male Chippewa Indian of the White Earth Reservation. On July 21, 1902, the United States issued a trust patent for the allotment pursuant to the Act of February 8, 1887, which declared the United States would hold the land in trust for 25 years and that any conveyance made before the expiration of that time would be "absolutely null and void."
On January 9, 1908, before the 25-year trust period expired, Shay-now-e-gwon-abe executed a warranty deed (purportedly for $100 and recorded) conveying the lands to defendant George Walters. In fact, Walters paid Shay-now-e-gwon-abe $800 (the fair value), and that sum was never repaid. Shay-now-e-gwon-abe died on May 27, 1908. Other defendants are persons claiming under Walters.
The United States seeks cancellation of the conveyance(s) and a decree quieting title in the Government, asserting the conveyance was void under the trust provisions. The district court entered decree for the complainant, cancelling the conveyances and quieting title in the United States.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a conveyance of allotted Indian land made before the expiration of the statutory trust period provided by the Act of February 8, 1887 is absolutely null and void, leaving title in the United States.
- Whether the United States must repay the purchase money (here, $800) paid to an allottee in order to obtain cancellation of a void conveyance and quiet title.
- Whether a treaty provision permitting alienation "with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior" affects the outcome where no such approval was ever given.
Arguments of the Parties
United States (Complainant)
- Sought a decree quieting title in the United States and cancelling the attempted conveyances of the allottee's land, asserting that the trust patent and the Act of February 8, 1887, reserved title in the United States for the trust period and made pre-expiration conveyances void.
Defendant George Walters (and those claiming under him)
- Asserted that, before the government could quiet title, it should repay the $800 Walters paid to the allottee for the land.
- Relied in part on the 1867 treaty language indicating lands could be alienated with approval of the Secretary of the Interior (and on contemporaneous changes authorizing some alienations by mixed-blood Indians), suggesting equitable considerations might require repayment.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Monson v. Simonson, 231 U.S. 341, 34 S. Ct. 71, 58 L. Ed. 260 | Holds that any conveyance or contract touching allotted land made before expiration of the trust period is absolutely null and void, and Congress intended title to remain in the United States during the entire trust period. | The court relied on Monson to conclude the attempted conveyance by the allottee to Walters was a nullity. |
| Starr v. Long Jim, 227 U.S. 613, 33 S. Ct. 358, 57 L. Ed. 670 | Explains that title retention by the United States was for public policy reasons to protect Indians; a conveyance made before title vested under the statute cannot operate as a conveyance or by way of estoppel. | The court cited Starr to support the conclusion that the pre-vesting conveyance was contrary to statutory policy and thus ineffective. |
| United States v. Debell et al. (C.C.A.) 227 F. 760, 780 | In the cited cases, where the Department of the Interior participated in the illegal transaction by granting a fee-simple deed, equity required the United States to refund purchase money before cancellation; one remand instructed conditional repayment ($2,000) to the purchaser if the patent and deeds were to be set aside. | The court distinguished Debell on the ground that there was no showing of Department of the Interior approval or participation in the present case, so the equitable condition imposed in Debell (repayment by the United States) did not apply here. |
| Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 413, 446, 32 S. Ct. 424, 56 L. Ed. 820 | States that where a conveyance violates statutory restrictions protecting Indians, return of the purchase consideration is not an essential prerequisite to cancellation; otherwise the protection Congress intended would be defeated. | The court relied on Heckman to reject the contention that the United States must repay Walters the $800 before cancelling the void conveyance. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by reciting the statutory trust patent issued under the Act of February 8, 1887, which declared the United States would hold allotted lands in trust for 25 years and that any conveyance or contract made before expiration of that period would be "absolutely null and void." The court applied the Supreme Court's holdings in Monson v. Simonson and Starr v. Long Jim, which establish that pre-expiration conveyances are void because Congress retained title for reasons of public policy and protection of the Indian allottees.
Confronting defendants' argument that the Government should repay the $800 paid to the allottee before it could obtain cancellation, the court examined precedent. It noted that in the Debell decisions a repayment condition was ordered where the Department of the Interior had contributed to or approved the illegal transaction by granting a fee-simple deed; in such circumstances equity required the United States to refund the purchase price before cancelling the titles. The court found no evidence here that the Secretary of the Interior approved the conveyance or otherwise participated in creating a mistaken impression of lawful title, and thus distinguished Debell.
The court relied on Heckman v. United States for the principle that return of the purchase consideration is not a prerequisite to cancellation when the conveyance was made in violation of statutory restrictions intended to protect an incompetent or improvident Indian. Allowing purchasers who knowingly or negligently dealt contrary to those statutory restrictions to retain land because the allottee had spent or squandered the money would frustrate the statute's protective purpose. The court therefore rejected the equitable argument that the Government must repay Walters before cancelling the conveyance.
The court also addressed a moral argument regarding congressional action that altered the status of White Earth Reservation Indians and may have enabled misrepresentations by the allottee; the court stated that such moral grievances are for Congress to remedy and do not provide a legal basis for defeating the statutory protections enacted by Congress.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court entered a decree cancelling the attempted conveyances referred to in the bill of complaint and quieting title to the property in the United States (decree for complainant).
Implications:
- The direct legal effect is that the conveyance from Shay-now-e-gwon-abe to George Walters is declared a nullity and title to the subject lands remains in the United States in trust for the allottee and his heirs under the Act of February 8, 1887.
- The court refused to require the United States to refund the $800 paid by Walters as a condition to cancelling the void conveyance, distinguishing prior cases in which the Department of the Interior had participated in creating a false impression of valid title.
- The opinion applies established precedent (Monson, Starr, Heckman) rather than announcing a new legal rule; no broader change in precedent was articulated beyond those applications.
In Equity. Suit by the United States against George Walters and others. Decree for complainant.
JOHN B. SANBORN, District Judge.
The lands described in the bill of complaint, which are situated in Becker county, Minn., were, prior to the 21st day of July, 1902, allotted to Shay-now-e-gwon-abe, a full-blood male Chippewa Indian of the White Earth Reservation, and on that date the United States issued to said allottee its trust patent for this allotment, which was recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Becker county, Minn., in Book 28, p. 29. The trust patent was issued pursuant to the Act of Congress of February 8. 1887, c. 119 § 5, 24 Stat. L. 389 (Comp. St. § 4201), which provides:
"Upon the approval of the allotments provided for in this act by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall cause patents to issue therefor in the name of the allottees, which patents shall be of the legal effect, and declare that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted, for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such an allotment shall have been made, or, in case of his decease, or his heirs according to the laws of the state or territory where such land is located, and that at the expiration of said period the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian, or his heirs as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever: Provided, That the President of the United States may in any case in his discretion extend the period. And if any conveyance shall be made of the lands set apart and allotted as herein provided, or any contract made touching the same, before the expiration of the time above mentioned, such conveyance or contract shall be absolutely null and void."
On January 9, 1908, before the expiration of the 25-year trust period, Shay-now-e-gwon-abe executed a warranty deed signed by himself and wife, purporting to convey the lands patented to him to George Walters, one of the defendants, for an alleged consideration of $100, which deed was recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Becker county, Minn., in Book 25, p. 46. George Walters was at that time and is now a Chippewa Indian of the White Earth Reservation, and was also allotted certain lands therein under original allotment No. 185, under his Indian name of Kah-gondaush. He actually paid to Shay-now-e-gwon-abe $800 as the consideration for the deed, which represented the fair value of the lands attempted to be conveyed to him, and this $800 has never been repaid him. On May 27, 1908, Shay-now-e-gwon-abe died. The other defendants are persons claiming under the defendant Walters.
Under the treaty with the Chippewas of the Mississippi, made and concluded at Washington on the 19th day of March, 1867, it was provided:
"And the land so held by any Indian shall be exempt from taxation and sale for debt, and shall not be alienated except with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and in no case to any person not a member of the Chippewa Tribe." 16 Stat. 721.
This action is brought by the United States to quiet the title to these lands and to cancel all attempted conveyances thereof.
In the case of Monson v. Simonson, 231 U.S. 341, 34 S. Ct. 71, 58 L. Ed. 260, wherein the validity of a conveyance made before the expiration of the trust period was questioned, the court held that any conveyance of the land or any contract touching the same, made before the expiration of such period, was absolutely null and void, and that it was the intention of Congress that the title should remain in the United States during the entire trust period.
In the case of Starr v. Long Jim, 227 U.S. 613, 33 S. Ct. 358, 57 L. Ed. 670, the court said:
"Since it is entirely plain, in the case before us, that the title to the lands in question was retained by the United States for reasons of public policy, and in order to protect the Indians against their own improvidence, it follows as matter of course that a conveyance made by one of them, before the title was vested in him pursuant to the act of 1905, was in the very teeth of the policy of the law, and could not operate as a conveyance, either by its primary force or by way of estoppel."
It is clear, therefore, that the attempted conveyance of the allottee in this case to Walters was a nullity.
It is claimed, however, that, before the government of the United States is entitled to have a decree quieting the title, it should repay to the defendant Walters the $800 which he paid to the Indian allottee. This claim is partly based upon the Treaty of 1867, which indicates that such lands may be alienated with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to another member of the Chippewa tribe. There is no claim, however, that the Secretary of the Interior ever approved the conveyance in question, and nothing to indicate that he ever would have approved it.
The cases of United States v. Debell et al. (C.C.A.) 227 F. 760, 780, are also referred to. The cases were decided in favor of the government; but in the third case it appeared that the defendant Debell had paid the allottee $2,000 for the land, and the court, in remanding the case, did so with instructions to "render a decree to the effect that on condition that the United States pays to Debell the sum of $2,000 within three months after the entry of the decree, the patent to Clown Woman, her deed to Courtis, and Courtis' deed to Debell be set aside and held for naught; that in case the $2,000 is not thus repaid, the land in controversy be sold at public sale, after due notice, under the direction of the court; that the parties to this suit and all persons claiming under them be thereby estopped from claiming this land, and that the title thereto be confirmed in the purchaser at the sale; that $2,000 of the proceeds thereof be paid to Debell and the remainder thereof to be paid to the United States and held and applied by it to the use and benefit of Clown Woman and her heirs." This action of the court was obviously based upon the fact that the Department of the Interior, in granting an application for a fee-simple deed, contributed to the illegal transaction, and that equity would require the United States, before it was entitled to a cancellation of the patent and deed, to refund the money paid for the land.
In Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 413, 446, 32 S. Ct. 424, 56 L. Ed. 820, Justice Hughes, with reference to this question, says:
"It is said that the allottees have received the consideration and should be made parties in order that equitable restoration may be enforced. Where, however, conveyance has been made in violation of the restrictions, it is plain that the return of the consideration cannot be regarded as an essential prerequisite to a decree of cancellation. Otherwise, if the Indian grantor had squandered the money, he would lose the land which Congress intended he should hold, and the very incompetence and thriftlessness which were the occasion of the measures for his protection would render them of no avail. The effectiveness of the acts of Congress is not thus to be destroyed. The restrictions were set forth in public laws, and were matters of general knowledge. Those who dealt with the Indians contrary to these provisions are not entitled to insist that they should keep the land if the purchase price is not repaid, and thus frustrate the policy of the statute."
It is also suggested that the fact that Walter parted with his $800 for this invalid deed was due to the Congress of the United States, shortly prior to the execution of the deed, authorizing the alienation by mixed blood Indians of their allotments on the White Earth Reservation, which put it within the power of the allottee in this instance, by representing that he was a mixed blood, to obtain the money, the status of the Indians of the White Earth Tribe at that time being undetermined. From a moral standpoint, there is much to this contention, but, if a moral wrong was committed by Congress in that regard, it is the body to whom the defendant Walters should apply, and not to the courts. As a matter of law, the deed which he received was a nullity, and the title has at all times remained in the United States of America in trust for Shay-now-egwon-abe and his heirs, as provided by the Act of February 8, 1887 (Comp. St. § 4195 et seq.), and the government has done nothing which would justify a court of equity in requiring that it restore to the defendant Walters what its allottee received from him for the void conveyance.
It follows that a decree must be entered canceling the conveyances referred to in the bill of complaint, and quieting the title to the property in the plaintiff, as prayed for. It is so ordered.
Alert