Transcript of Record — Hill v. Reynolds
Supreme Court brief1917
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
(24,540)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
OCTOBER TERM, 1915.
No. 337.
HARRY F. HILL, A MINOR, AND J. B. HILL, A MINOR, BY
THEIR NEXT FRIEND AND LEGAL GUARDIAN, DAVE
HILL, AND LOUIS JAMES, BY HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN,
PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v8.
FRANK REYNOLDS, A MINOR.
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.
INDEX
Original. Print
eee TOUNEM CO WERE OF CPTOE. «ccc csccccccecctesccteseutese a 1
i i. ach och Sac ireccn a AW ch ca iain ere em 1 1
etition for writ of error and allowance.................00005 3 3
eS pd anes cue Senet 6bA cad HERS CREM MEUM Rares 5 3
tidavit as to amount involved............. 0 ceceecccecccccees 8 5
ns Cagd bbads bk ME tiKe nk Reoe bine eScabe CON aWN 9 5
ME 5 56 0 4a Sees eee eed es MAE Kee Uae hanbee ava wees 11 6
NE <5 ha GA e's a Ware baer ek SOG as Osa ewe ee wana ee ees 12 7
Petition in error of Frank Reynolds et al..............0c0ceee 14 8
Ethel A. Reynolds e¢ al.................. 16 9
poe ee ee er errr ard es 18 10
Seldon Reynolds et al............2. 00005 20 12
Frank Reynolds et al................0000. 22 13
a I ord 694.5 ko tA Dek AANA Oddo ae ee MOw Ke Chew eeer 24 14
Jupp & DerwetLEer (INc.), Printers, WASHINGTON, D. C., FesruaRy 25, 1916.
ii INDEX.
Case-made from superior court of Grady county.............6.
NE chs aGtigys Sau s wawbendesceteswese ake aE eye ee
Exhibits—Chickasaw allotment contest blanks....... ne
Statement of recerd by commission................0ee008 °
Findings of fact and conclusions of law by commission....
EE Pe PEP TEE TT eT TS
Communication, Larrabee, acting jiniumhinenas. to comunis-
sioner of five civilized tribes. ............... ccc eeeeeeee
Decision of Interior Departmert on review............... ‘
Statement of Mr. Bond, counsel for contestants......... ian
IEEE ccc edd esadchsscvacves precniee
J. W. Blassingame..............++- Bare
Frank W. Plato........ Seid sae wen sue e504
Ne dnc eH CeWS6 66-0 6 a.c Sede a raw sis
Cems Cy TRG ONE so. onan ccc ccceccenccece
ra ck warts bas a nid 4.6: sc Giev bie each be
James H. Tuttle (recalled).................
i EE iiinneudaccemevsi sv deds cekadioes
Certificate of acting commissioner to papers, etc............
Letter, Ryan. first acting secretary, to Commissioner of
Indian Affairs, February 6, 1907. ............cccceeeeees
Letter, Woodruff, aeting secretary, to Commissioner of In-
dian Affairs, August 21, 1907. ........ ccc cccccccccccces
Letter, Hauke, second assistant commissioner, to cena
sioner to the five civilized tribes, Mey 11, 1911...........
Exhibit 1—Decision of Interior Department on review.....
IE SP NNN, 5 oon Sac cccincescceicvcsscccscrecscs
Summons and sheriff's return...............ceeeeee ees ‘
Demurrer ..........-+- aid dealaAdiing Wiehe seh adie Sh eee wae
SN PIO a crawcwvials cnineicedebn'yic ccc cv vocgusvee °
Motion for appointment of guardian ad litem......... ere
Order appointing guardian ad litem.............6 cece eeees
Aneweor of guardian Gd Hom... 2... ccccccccscccccccccsccs
cette ce wal RaRb Ge AUE Eee ees pate sbeecadceee
Order appointing receiver. .......-...2.... eee eee ai aaies ae
Bond and oath of receliver..........ccccccccccccccccces pie
eee aa aa lcecueme hen Wis sss00d ¥s sae e0's os
de. ccltewswaeesiacéicies <weenawe
Exhibit D—Will of C. L. Campbell and certificate
SE WR cainnieccdawiataascncwetccegpeutens
Ne ee adwe pad Aeee ww s$1's bs ep -00. 60 be hee
Certificate of acting commissioner................. ee
Exhibit E—Quit-claim deed, Campbell to Hill, Novem-
F—Quit-claim deed, Campbell e Hill, Decem-
INDEX.
Exhibit G—Quit-claim deed. Campbell to Blassingame,
January 21, 1899.........ccccescccccees
H—Quit-claim deed, Blassingame to Brimage,
December 10, 1902..........0cee eee eeee
I—Quit-claim deed, Blassingame to Brimage,
December 10, 1902...........-sceeeeeee
J and J'—Testimony of Charles A. Reynolds
before department .........00eeeeeeeeee
pi er eer SP rey tere er eer tree ee ree fe wea
Motion for a new trial. ...... cc cece cccccccceccscccce yeas
Order overruling motion for a new triul, etc.............6.
Motion to extend time, etc...........0.0- eee ee ene earetete+ ge
Agreement, etc., as to Case-made....... ee. cee eeneeeeeecees
Reporter's certificates ......... cece cece e een renee eeeeee .
Service of case-made..........eee eee ee eens ended ods janen
CRIS COTEIEIOOED skins oi icici sc ccnccntccdensavcnsseees
. Order settling case-made. ........- 2... cece cece ee eeeeeceees
Stipulation as to case-made. ........ ccc cece ewer eer eeeeeee
Judge’s certificate to case-made........ cee eee eee eee eeees
Journal entry advancing cause...........+++. We Sy ee roe
Journal entry continuing cause...........+eeeeeeeee <essnteese
Journal entry continuing cause. ...........-.eeeeee wee paws ees
Motion to correct case-made........ cece eee cece eect eeeeee ne
Stipulation to correct case-MAde....... 6.6 eee cece eee eee e eee
Exhibit K—Amended complaint.............+eeeeeeceees ‘
Homestead patent No. 16752..........++. kee
No. 18633... cccccscoee rear
No. 18632...... SMPery ET eet
No. 20048... ccscccces Saran
Allotment patent No. 19340............. canes
TG 65.55 5 0 s\0:66.06 chA 8455 6's eer Tey
M—Writ of possession and return........ pe wagaee
N—Complaint in ejectment.........-..eeeeeees
Exhibit A—Quit-claim deed, Tuttle, etc., to
Hill, November 18, 1902...
Court’s instructions to jury..........eeeeeeeee
Journal entry: Oral argument and submission.............++-
Journal entry of judgment......... 2... cece cece cree er eee eeee ‘
Opinion, Turner, J... ....-+- eee reece cece eee Perr ey jaa
urder staying mandate..... ig CFE ae Se ees Ree TORO ewes
Petition for rehearing... ........-ccscccccsccccesccsens i i ve init
Reply to petition for rehearing. ..........eeeeeereeeeeeee cones
Jow™ial entry denying petition for rehearing...... Sai bees
Order staying mandate.............ceeeceeeeeeeecee ta eulekbices
Certificate Of Clerk...... ccc cece recs ccc ce cc eensvcccecceceees
lll
Original. Print
253 2148
256 86149
259 ©=—-:150
262 © 152
277 = s«158
280 ~=—«-:160
282 = s«161
285 162
287 ~—s«:168
290 ~=—«-164
293 8=—:166
295 «167
297 ~—s:168
299 ~=—«169
300 170
302 170
303 =—-:170
304 «171
305 «171
307 ~=—«:172
308 178
310 +174
311 176
812 177
313 —s-:178
314 ~—s- 180
315 =: 181
316 ~=—s-:188
318 184
321 186
324 187
329 «=—:190
330 190
331 191
339 = «s«196
340 4s «196
347 200
352-208
353-208
354 208
= , enone
HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS. FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 1
a In the Supreme Court of **e State of Oklahoma.
No. 5135, with Which is Consolidated Nos. 5136, 5137, 5138, and
5139.
Frank Reynotps, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff in Error,
vs.
Harry F. Hitt, a Minor, ete., Defendant in Error.
Clerk’s Return to Writ of Error.
In obedience to the command of the within writ of error, I here-
with Transmit to the Supreme Court of the United States the duly
certified transcript of the record, the opinion and the proceedings
of the within entitled cause, and all the things concerning the same.
In witness whereof, I hereunto subscribe my name and affix the
seal of the said Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma this 13th
day of Jan’y, 1915.
[Sea! Supreme Court, State of Oklahoma. ]
WILLIAM M. FRANKLIN,
Clerk of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
1 Filed Dec. 18, 1914. William M. Franklin, Clerk.
Unitep STATEs OF AMERICA:
Frank Reynotps, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff in Error,
vs.
Harry F. Hitt, a Minor, ete., Defendant in Error.
Citation.
To the above named Defendants in Error, Greetings:
You are hereby cited and admonished to be and appear in the
Supreme Court of the United States in the City of Washington,
District of Columbia, thirty days from the date after this 18 day
of Dec. 1914, pursuant to a writ of error filed in the Clerk’s office
of the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, wherein you are
defendant in error, and Frank Reynolds, a Minor, etc., are Plain-
tiffs in error, to show cause, if any there be, why the judgment
rendered against the said plaintiffs in error, as in said writ of error
mentioned should not be corrected, and speedy justice should not be
done the parties in that behalf.
Witness the Honorable John B. Turner, Acting Chief Justice,
2 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
ved iy Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, this 18 day of Dec
1914.
JOHN B. TURNER,
Vice Chief Justice.
2 Attest:
[Seal Supreme Court, State of Oklahoma. ]
WM. M. FRANKLIN,
Clerk of the Supreme Court,
By JESSIE PARDOE, Deputy.
Service of the foregoing citation is hereby accepted.
This 19th day Dec, 1914.
F. E. RIDDLE,
Att'y for Def’ts in Error.
HARRY HAMMERLY,
Att'y for Minors and Guardian ad Litem.
Filed Dec. 18, 1914. William M. Franklin, Clerk.
3 Filed Dec. 17, 1914. William M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 5135, with Which is ner Nos. 5136, 5137, 5138 an
139,
Frank Reynoxps, a Minor, Etc., Plaintiff in Error,
vs.
Harry F. Hitt, a Minor, Etc., Defendant in Error.
Petition for Writ of Error.
Harry F. Hill, a Minor and J. B. Hill, a Minor by their nex
friend and legal guardian, Dave Hill, and Louis James, by his lega
guardian, defendants in error in the above entitled causes, havin;
been ag-rieved by the decision and judgment of the court rendere
hereon, on the 13 day of Oct. 1914, Come now by Bond and Melto1
and C. B. Stuart, their attorneys, of record herein, and petition th
court for an order allowing the defendants in error to prosecute :
writ of error to the Honorable Supreme Court of the United States
under and according to the rules of the United States in that behalf
made and provided, and have an order that all other proceeding
herein be suspended and stayed until the determination of the sai
Writ of Error by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Petitioners respectfully state to the Court that a federal questioi
is presented by the record in this case, as will more fully ap
4 pear from the assignments of error filed herein setting up u
detail such federal question.
C. B. STUART,
BOND & MELTON,
Attys for Petit
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 3
Allowed Dec. 17, 1914. Bond fixed at $1000.
JOHN B. TURNER,
Vice Chief Justice.
Attest:
[Seal Supreme Court, State of Cklahoma. ]
WM. M. FRANKLIN,
Clerk Supreme Court,
By JESSIE PARDOE, Deputy.
Filed Dec. 17, 1914. William M. Franklin, Clerk.
5 Filed Dec. 17, 1914. William M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 5135, with Which is — Nos. 5136, 5137, 5138 and
139.
Frank Reynowps, a Minor, Etc., Plaintiff in Error,
vs. ‘i
Harry F. Ht, a Minor, Ete., Defendant in Error.
Assignment of Errors.
Now come Harry F. Hill, a Minor, and J. B. Hill, a Minor, by
their next friend and legal Guardian, Dave Hill, and Louis James,
by his legal Guardian, Defendants in Error in the above entitled
cause, and say that in the record and proceedings in the above enti-
tled cause, there is manefest error in this to-wit:
) &
The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma committed error in
reversing judgment of the ae Court of Grady County and in
rendering judgment against the Defendants in Error, and in favor
of the Plaintiffs in Error.
IL.
The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma committed
6 error in holding that the claim or right of the Minor Heirs
of C. L. Campbell, deceased, under the acts of Congress of
the 28 day of June 1898 and July, 1902, were, and had been aban-
doned by the Guardian of the Minors.
III.
The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma committed error in
_ denying to defendants in error the right and title set up and claimed
by defendants in error under the acts of Congress of June 28th, 1898,
iene
4 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
and September 25th, 1902, known as the Atoka Agreement and the
Supplemental Agreement thereto.
IV.
The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma erred in holding
that the act of Congress of June 28th, 1898, providing that after the
passage of that act, the laws of the various tribes or nations of In-
dians should not be enforced at law or in equity by the Courts of
the United States or in the Indian Territory.
And, the section in the same act providing that all tribal courts in
the Indian Territory should be abolished applied to the Chickasaw
Tribe of Indians where the lands sought to be allotted in this case
is pocated. .
The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma erred in holding
that the will of C. L. Campbell, deceased, which was the paper title
upon which the defendants in error relied, should not be
7 considered in the determination of the case, and in holding
that said will was of no force and effect as a muniment of
title, because its probate was unauthorized and void by virtue of the
provisions of the acts of Congress, set out in the fourth assignment.
VI.
The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma erred in not holding
that the will of C. L. Campbell aforesaid, was duly probated was
the common scource of title to all the parties of this litigation and
was admissable in evidence.
VII.
The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma erred in not hold-
ing that under the Atoka Agreement aforesaid; and the Supple-
mental Agreement thereto, these defendants in error were entitled
to allot the land in controversy under and by virtue of said acts of
Congress under which the defendants in error claim and set up their
rights to the allotment in controversy.
Wherefore the said Plaintiffs in Error pray that the Judgment of
the Supreme Court of Oklahoma be reversed and that judgment be
rendered for the plaintiffs in error as prayed in their petition.
C. B. STUART,
BOND & MELTON,
Attorneys for Plaintiff in Error. '
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 5
8 Filed Dec. 19, 1914. William M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 5135.
Frank Reynoxps, a Minor, Plaintiff in Error,
Harry F. Hitt, a Seine, Defendant in Error.
Affidavit.
Alger Melton of lawful age on oath states that he is one of the
attorneys of record of Harry F. Hill, a minor, defendant in error
in the above entitled cause, and the amount in controversy in said
cause, exclusive of interest and costs exceeds $5,000.00.
ALGER MELTON.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 18th day of Decem-
ber, 1914.
[Seal of H. W. Cabeen, Notary Public, Grady County, Okla. ]
H. W. CABEEN,
Notary Public.
My commission expires Jan. 6th, 1918.
Unirep States OF AMERICA:
Filed Dec. 19, 1914. William M.’Franklin, Clerk.
The President of the United States of America to the Honorable
Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, Greetings:
Because in the record and proceedings and also in the condition of
the judgment of a plea, which is in the said Supreme Court of the
State of Oklahoma, before you, or some of you, by the highest court
of law or equity of the State, in which a decision could be had in the
said suit between Frank Reynolds, a Minor, etc., Plaintiffs in error
and Harry F. Hill and J. B. Hill, by their next friend and ‘legal
guardian, Dave Hill, and Louis James, by his legal Guardian, De-
fendants in error, wherein was drawn in question the construc-
tion of a statute of the United States and the decision was against
the right, title, privilege or exemption specially set-up or claimed
under such statute, a manifest error has happened to the great dam-
age of Harry F. Hill, a Minor, and J. B. Hill, a Minor, by their
next friend and legal Guardian, Dave Hill, and Louis James by his
Legal Guardian, as by their complaint appears.
We being willing that error, if any hath been, should be fully cor-
rected and full and speedy justice done to the parties aforesaid in
this behalf, do command you, if judgment be therein given, that
then under your seal, distinctly and openly, you send the record
1 proceedings aforesaid, with all things concerning the same to
mer
6 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
the Supreme Court of the United States together with this writ s0
that you have the same at Washington on the 18 day of Jany., 191&
in the said Supreme — to be then and there held that the
10 record and proceeding aforesaid, being inspected, the Su
preme Court may cause further to be done therein, to correct
that error, what of right and according to the laws and customs of
the United States should be done.
Witness the Honorable Edward D. White, Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States this 18 day of Dec., 1914.
[Seal of the United States District Court, Western District of
Oklahoma. }
ARNOLD C. DOLDE,
Clerk of the District Court of the United States,
for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Allowed by
JOHN B. TURNER,
Acting Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
11 Filed Dec. 18, 1914. William M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. —
Frank Reynotps, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff in Error,
Harry F. Hir1, a Minor, ete., Defendant in Error.
Supersedeas Order.
This cause coming on to be heard on this 18th day of December,
1914, unon the application of defendant in error for a writ of error,
to the Supreme Court of the United States, and an order supersedeas
and the same having been duly considered it is hereby ordered that
the application for supersedeas to be in the same is hereby allowed,
and the iudgment of the said Supreme Court of the State of Okla- ‘
homa is hereby suspended and the Clerk of the said Court is hereby
directed to stay the mandate of the Supreme Court to the District
Court of Grady County, until the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States to the said writ of error and the further order
of this court.
JOHN B. TURNER,
Vice Chief Justice.
Attest:
[sear.] WM. M. FRANKLIN, Clerk,
By JESSIE PARDOE, Deputy.
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC.
12 Filed Dec. 19, 1914. William M. Franklin, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 5135, with which is —— Nos. 5136, 5137, 5138 and
Frank Reynotps, a Minor, et al., Plaintiffs in Error,
vs.
Harry F. Ht, a Minor, et al., Defendants in Error.
Supersedcas Bond.
Whereas the above named defendants in error Harry F. Hill, a
minor, J. B. Hill, a minor, and Lewis James, a minor, by their next
friend and guardian has prosecuted a writ of error to the Supreme
Court of the United States to reverse the judgment rendered in the
above entitled action by the Supreme Court of the State of Okla-
homa which writ of error has been allowed by the Supreme Court of
the State of Oklahoma, and a supersedeas bond fixed in the sum of
$1,000.00 by the order of said Court.
Now, therefore, we, Harry F. Hill, a minor, J. B. Hill, a minor,
and Lewis James. a minor, by their next friend and guardian, prin-
cipal-, and Dave Hill, Ed. F. Johns, and C. R. Phillips, sureties, are
held and firmly bound unto Frank Reynolds, Ethel Reynolds and
Selden Reynolds, plaintiffs in error, in the sum of $1,000.00 to be
paid to said obligees, their successors, representatives and assigns, and
for the payment of which well and truly to be made, we bind our-
selves, our heirs, executors and administrators jointly and severally
by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if
the above named plaintiffs in error shall prosecute their said writ
of error to effect, answer all costs and damages if they fail to make
good in their plea, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to
remain in full force and effect.
13 Signed and dated this the 18th day of December, 1914.
HARRY F. HILL,
J. B. HILL anp
LEWIS JAMES, Minors,
By C. B. STUART anv
BOND & MELTON & MELTON,
Their Attorneys of Record.
DAVE HILL,
ED. F. JOHNS,
C. R. PHILLIPS,
Sureties.
I hereby approve the foregoing bond and sureties thereon this the
19th day of December, 1914.
JOHN B. TURNER,
Vice-Chief Justice.
Attest :
[seat.] WM. M. FRANKLIN, Clerk,
By JESSIE PARDOE, Deputy.
8 HARRY F, HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
14 Filed May 19, 1913. W. H. L. Campbell, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 5135.
Frank Reynotps, a Minor, Suing by and Through His Legal
Guardian, C. A. Reynolds, and Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad
Litem, Plaintiffs in Error,
vs.
Harry F. Hitt, a Minor, and His Next Friend and Legal Guardian,
Dave Hill, Defendants in Error.
Petition in Error.
The said Frank Reynolds, and C. A. Reynolds, his legal guardian,
and Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad Litem, plaintiffs in error, com-
plaining of said Harry F. Hill, a minor and his next friend and
guardian, Dave Hill, defendants in error, in that the said defendant
in error at the March 1913 term of the Superior Court sitting within
and for Grady County, Oklahoma, recovered a judgment, by the
consideration of said court, against the said Frank Reynolds, and his
legal guardian, C. A. Reynolds, and the guardian ad litem, Harry
Hammerly, plaintiffs in error, in a certain action then pending in
said court. wherein the said Harry F. Hill, by his next friend and
legal guardian, Dave Hill, was plaintiff, and the said Frank Rey-
nolds and his legal guardian, C. A. Reynolds, and Harry Hammerly,
Guardian Ad Litem, were defendants. The original case made, duly
certified and attested, is hereto attached, marked “Exhibit A” and
made a part of this petition in error.
And the said Frank Revnolds, and his legal guardian C. A. Rey-
nolds, and the said Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad Litem, aver that
there are errors in said record and proceedings, in this to-wit:
15 First. That the tiral court erred in rendering judgment
against said plaintiffs in error and in favor of the defendant
in error.
Second. That the trial court erred in admitting and considering
certain testimony offered on the part of the defendant in error.
Third. The trial court erred in not dismissing the petition of de-
fendant in error and in not rendering judgment in favor of the 4
plaintiffs in error.
Fourth. The trial court erred in cancelling the patents of the
plaintiff in error and in decreeing and adjudging said plaintiff in
error holding the legal title to said land in trust for the defendant
in error.
Fifth. The trial court erred in holding that the Land Department
and the Secretarv of the Interior committed error of law and gross
error of fact in the final decision awarding said land in controversy
to the plaintiff in error.
ac,
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 9
Sixth. The trial court erred in overruling the motion of the plain-
tiff in error for a new trial. ;
Wherefore, plaintiff in error pray- that said pen, pe so rendered
may be reversed, set aside and held for naught, and that a judgment
be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error, Frank Reynolds, de-
creeing and adjudging him to be the legal and equitable owner of
the land in controversy, and directing and ordering the petition of
the defendant in error to be dismissed ; and prays that in the event
the Court does not deem it proper to render a judgment in this court,
that said judgment and decision of the trial court be reversed and
remanded to proceed in accordance with the judgment and opinion
of this court; and will ever pray.
F. E. RIDDLE,
Attorney for Plaintiff in Error.
HARRY HAMMERLY,
Guardian ‘Ad Litem.
«16 Filed May 19, 1913. W. H.-L. Campbell, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 5136.
Ernet A. Reynoups, a Minor, Suing by and through Her Legal
Guardian, C. A. Reynolds, and Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad
Litem, Plaintiffs in Error,
vs.
Lovis James, by His Legal Guardian, Dave Hill, Defendants in
Error.
Petition in Error.
The said Ethel A. Reynolds, and C. A. Reynolds, her legal
guardian, and Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad Litem, plaintiffs in
error, complaining of said Louis James, and his next friend and legal
guardian, Dave Hill, defendants in error, in that the said defendant
in error at the March 1913 term of the Supreme Court sitting
within and for Grady County, Oklahoma, recovered a judgment, by
the consideration of said court, against the said Ethel A. Reynolds,
and her legal guardian, C. A. Reynolds, and the Guardian Ad Litem,
Harry Hammerly, plaintiffs in error, in a certain action then pending
in said court wherein the said Louis James, by his next friend and
legal guardian, Dave Hill, was plaintiff, and the said Ethel A. Rey-
nolds and her legal guardian, C. A. Reynolds, and Harry Ham-
merly, Guardian Ad Litem, were defendants. The original case
made, duly certified and attested, is hereto attached, marked “Ex-
hibit A” and made a part of this petition in error.
17 And the said Ethel A. Reynolds, and her legal guardian,
: C. A. Reynolds, and the said Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad
Litem aver that there are errors in said record and proceedings, in
this to-wit:
10 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
First. That the trial court erred in rendering judgment against
said plaintiffs in error and in favor of the defendant in error.
Second. That the trial court erred in admitting and considering
certain testimony offered on the part of the defendant in error.
Third. The trial court erred in not dismissing the petition of the
defendant in error and in not rendering judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs in error.
Fourth. The trial court erred in cancelling the patents of the
plaintiff in error and in decreeing and adjudging said plaintiff in
error holding the legal title to said land in trust for the defendant in
error.
Fifth. The trial court erred in holding that the Land Department
and the Secretary of the Interior committed error of law and gross
error of fact in the final decision awarding said land in controversy
to the plaintiff in error.
Sixth. The trial court erred in overruling the motion of the plain-
tiff in error for a new trial.
Wherefore, plantiff in error pray- that said judgment so rendered
may be reversed, set aside and held for naught, and that a judgment
be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error, Ethel A. Reynolds,
decreeing and adjudging her to be the legal and equitable owner of
the land in controversy, and directing and ordering the petition of
the defendant in error to be dismissed; and prays that in the event
the Court does not deem it proper to render a judgment in this court,
that said judgment and decision of the trial court be reversed and
remanded to proceed in accordance with the judgment and opinion
of this court; and will ever pray.
F. E. RIDDLE,
Attorney for Plaintiff in Error.
HARRY, HAMMERLY,
Guardian Ad Litem.
18 Filed May 19, 1913. W. H. L. Campbell, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 5137.
Wile Reynotps, Plaintiff in Error,
vs.
J. B. Hitt, by and Through His Next Friend and Legal Guardian,
Dave Hill, Defendant in Error.
Petition in Error.
The said Willie Reynolds, Plaintiff in error, complaining of said J.
B. Hill and his next friend and legal guardian, Dave Hill, defendants
in error, in that the said defendants in error at the March 1913 term
of the Superior Court sitting within and for Grady County, Okla
homa, recovered a judgment, by the consideration of said court.
COPY BOUND
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 1l
Fl against the said Willie Reynolds, plaintiff in error, in a certain action
then et in said court wherein the said J. B. Hill, by his next
# friend and legal guardian, Dave Hill, was plaintiff, and the said
Willie Reynolds was defendant. The original case made, dul certi-
# fied and attested, is hereto attached, marked “Exhibit A” an made
fa part of this petition in error.
And the said Willie Reynolds avers that there are errors in said
F record and proceedings, in this, to-wit:
2. First. That the trial court erred in rendering judgment against
® said plaintiff in error and in favor of the defendant in error.
Second. That the trial court erred in admitting and considering
A certain testimony offered on the part of the defendant in error.
Third. That the trial court erred in not dismissing the petition
‘B of the defendant in error and in not rendering judgment in favor of
the plaintiff in error.
19 Fourth. The trial court erred in cancelling the patents of the
plaintiff in error and in decreeing and adjudging said plaintiff
in error holding the legal title to said land in trust for the defendant
in error. ‘
Fifth. The trial court erred in holding that the Land Department
and the Secretary of the Interior committed error of law and gross
error of fact in the final decision awarding said land in controversy
to the plaintiff in error.
Sixth. The trial court erred in overruling the motion of the plain-
tiff in error for a new trial.
Wherefore. plaintiff in error prays that said judgment so rendered
may be reversed. set aside and held for naught. and that a judgmen*
be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error. Willie Reynolds. decree-
ing and adjudging him to be legal and equitable owner of the land
in controversy, and directing and ordering the petition of defendant
in error to be dismissed ; and prays that in the event the Court does
not deem it proper to render a judgment in this court, that said
judgment and decision of the trial court be reversed and remanded
to proceed in accordance with the judgment and opinion of this court
and will ever pray.
F. E. RIDDLE,
Attorney for Plaintiff in Error.
wa eeevr ree
'y
~~ = De
. 2st
~
) CLOSE IN CENTER
— ———
—y
12 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
20 Filed May 19, 1913. W. H. L. Campbell, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 5138.
Setpon Reynowps, a Minor, Suing by and through His Legal
Guardian, C. A. Reynolds, and Harry Hammerly, Guardian
Ad Litem, Plaintiffs in Error,
vs.
Lewis James, a Minor, by His Legal Guardian, Dave Hill, De
fendants in Error.
Petition in Error.
The said Seldon Reynolds, and C. A. Reynolds, his legal guardian,
and Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad Litem, plaintiffs in error, com.
plaining of Lewis James, a minor, and his next friend and guardian,
Dave Hill, defendants in error, in that the said defendant in error
at the March 1913 term of the Superior Court sitting within and for
Grady County, Oklahoma, recovered a judgment, by the considera-
tion of said court, against the said Seldon Reynolds, and his legal
guardian, C. A. Reynolds, and the Guardian Ad Litem, Harry Ham.
merly, plaintiffs in error, in a certain action then pending in said
court, wherein the said Lewis James, by his next friend and legal
guardian, Dave Hill. was plaintiff. and the said Seldon Reynolds, and
his legal guardian, C. A. Reynolds and Harry Hammerly, Guardian
Ad Litem, were defendants. The original case-made, duly certified
and attested. is hereto attached, marked “Exhibit A” and made a part
of this petition in error.
And the said Seldon Reynolds, and his lege’ guardian, GC. A.
Reynolds, and the said Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad Litem, aver
that there are errors in said record and proceedings, in this
to-wit:
21 First. That the trial court erred in rendering judgment
against said plaintiffs in error and in favor of the defendant
in error.
Second. That the trial court erred in admitting and considering
certain testimony offered on the part of the defendant in error.
Third. The trial court erred in not dismissing the petition of the
defendant in error and in not rendering judgment in favor of tke
plaintiff in error.
Fourth. The trial court erred in cancelling the patents of the
plaintiff in error and in decreeing and adjudging said plaintiff in
error holding the legal title to said land in trust for the defendant
in error.
Fifth. The trial court erred in holding that the Land Department
and the Secretary of the Interior committed error of law and“ gros:
error of fact in the final decision awarding said land in controversy
to the plaintiff in error.
COPY BOUND
eam
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 13
Sirth. The trial court erred in overruling the motion of the plain-
iff in error for a new trial.
Wherefore, Plaintiff in error pray- tha said judgment so rendered
may be reversed, set aside and held for naught, and that a judgment
be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error, Seldon Reynolds, de-
ereeing and adjudging him to be the legal and equitable owner of
the land in controversy, and directing and ordering the petition of
the defendant in error to be dismissed; and prays that in the event
the Court does not deem it proper to render a judgment in this Court,
that said judgment and decision of the trial court be reversed and
remanded to proceed in accordance with the judgment and opinion
of this court; and will ever pray.
F. E. RIDDLE,
Attorney for Plaintiff in Error.
HARRY HAMMERLY,
Guardian ad Litem.
22 Filed May 19, 1913. W. H. L. Campbeil, Clerk.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
No. 5139.
Frank ReyNoups, by and through His Legal Guardian, C. A.
Reynolds, and Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad Litem, Plain-
tiffs in Error,
vs
J. B. Hit, by and through His Next Friend, Dave Hill and Legal
| Guardian, Defendants in Error.
Petition in Error.
The said Frank Reynolds, and C. A. Reynolds, his legal guardian,
and Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad Litem, plaintiffs in error, com-
plaining of J. B. Hill, a minor, and his next friend, Dave Hill, de-
fendants in error, in that the said defendants in error at the March
1913 term of the Superior Court within and for Grady County, Ok-
lahoma, recovered a judgment, by the consideration of said court,
against the said Frank Reynolds, and his legal guardian, C. A.
Reynolds, and the Guardian Ad Litem, Harry Hammerly, in a
certain action then pending in said court, wherein the said J. B. Hill
by his next friend and legal guardian, Dave Hill was plaintiff, and
the said Frank Reynolds and his legal guardian C. A. Reynolds, and
Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad Litem, were defendants. The
original case made, duly certified and attested, is hereto attached,
marked “Exhibit A” and made a part of this petition in error.
And the said Frank Reynolds, and his legal guardian, C. A.
Reynolds, and the said Harry Hammerly, Guardian Ad Litem, aver
that there are errors in said record and proceedings, in this, to-
wit: -
;
CLOSE IN CENTER
ce
14 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
23 First. That the trial court erred in rendering judgment
against said plaintiffs in error and in favor of the defendant
in error.
Second. That the trial court erred in admitting and considering
certain testimony offered on the part of the defendant in error.
Third. The trial court erred in not dismissing the petition of the
defendant in error and in not rendering judgment in favor of the
plaintiff in error. ;
Fourth. The trial court erred in cancelling the patents of the
laintiff in error and in decreeing and adjudging said plaintiff
in error helding the legal title to ala land in trust for the defendant
in error.
Fifth. The trial court erred in holding that the Land Department
and the Secretary of the Interior committed error of law and gross
error of fact in the final decision awarding said land in controversy
to the plaintiff in error.
Sixth. The trial court erred in overruling the motion of the plain-
tiff in error for a new trial.
Wherefore, the plaintiff in error prays that said judgment s0
rendered may be reversed, set aside and held for naught, and that
a judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error, Frank
Reynolds, decreeing and adjudging him to be the legal and equi-
table owner of the land in controversy, and directing and ordering
the petition of the defendant in error to be dismissed; and prays
that in the event the Court does not deem it proper to render a judg-
ment in this court, that said judgment and decision of the trial court
be reversed and remanded to proceed in accordance with the judg-
ment and opinion of this court; and will ever pray.
F. E. RIDDLE,
Attorney for Plaintiffs in Error.
HARRY HAMMERLY,
Guardian ad Litem.
24 Indez.
NEE oo vie bes a SeVec tasers sreeiasnicoenesdeons
a vc vaisecvas heb Weber godbweseeekbewa Sa
SL in he NINA Og de U6 O01 VOCRR RRR RON OO ESO REDO
I Be MIND is Fone ce rcv dwte re srevinreses
ESE SE ery ete tT eee rer ee
RG IEE EE PTT eT TOE eT EET eee er
MN Sv sin ba nos sew heas gcse see ebscdses wa
Motion for appointment guardian ad lite n
Order appinting guardian ad litem.....................
I PE on os avin bse okenee oe ebb etwas
ee i, cia wih sb he kid x dete ha ae whee O0.0 wack
Se II 6 oes Kb noch vkdnde meses sees
EE CPP TT ST ee eee ee ee rE Tee
Agreement of counsel consolidating cases.................
MED nin s eWed ek eV RACKED ECAC O06 8 ee 0ees FH
COPY BOUND
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC.
Evidence Introduced on Behalf of Plaintiff.
Petition pages — to — and exhibits — to “Q” inclusive... .
Plaintiff closes .......-. Ne eitts 2s vee heed ON MAED ERAT RAS 2
Order to pay receiver’s fees.......-++eeeeeeeerereeeeee
Judgment .........scceecereecceceecercescesscerress
Motion for new trial .......... ce eee e reese eee e ee eeges
Journal entry overruling motion for new trial and extension
SE BMG ccc c ccc cccccccccccescvcsvrccevcrssscccers 27
Motion for extension of time ........---+eeeeeeeereeres
BE bac esdeyenevcovsceWespevesenesnevcnwersnsee
Affidavit of reporter .........eeeeeseeeeeeeeerereeeees
Certificate of reporter ......- cece reece eee ee ree eeeeees
Clerk’s certificate ......6 eee cece cece eee eee e ee eteeees
Acceptance of service and amendments......----++++++++
Stipulation of counsel .......-..eseeeeee ee ereeereees
Judge's a ee POPP ATU TTLET TTT
Filed April 19, 19138. W. L. Melton, Clerk Superior Court.
Filed Apr. 21, 1913. S. L. Newman, Clerk District Court, Grady
County, Okla.
CLOSE IN CENTER
16 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
25 In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
Appealed from the Superior Court Within and for the County of
Grady, State of Oklahoma.
Frank ReyNnotps and Harry Hammerty, His Guardian Ad
Litem, Defendant Below, Plaintiffs in Error,
vs. ;
Harry Hix, a Minor, Suing by His Next Friend and Natural
Guardian, Dave Hill, Plaintiff Below, Defendant in Error,
Nature of Cause: Suit for Possession of Land.
Appearances:
For plaintiff below: Bond & Melton & Stewart, Cruce & Gilbert
For defendant below: F, E. Riddle & Harry Hammerly,
Before Hon. Will Linn, Judge.
Case-Made,
G. U. McKinney, Reporter.
26 In the Superior Court within and for Grady County, State
of Oklahoma.
No. 399.
Harry F. H111, a Minor, Suing by His Next Friend and Natural
Guardian, Dave Hill, Plaintiff,
vs.
Frank ReEyNotps, a Minor, Defendant.
Case-Made.
Be it remembered, that heretofore, to-wit on the 12th day of
March, 1912, the plaintiff commenced this action against the de
fendant herein, by filing in the Superior Court within and for Grady
County, State of Oklahoma, his petition, which said petition was in
words and figures as follows, to-wit:
G. U. McKinney, Reporter.
* ~
mca
COPY BOUND ¢
or
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 17
27 (Filed April 19, 1918. W. L. Melton, Clerk of Superior
Court. )
In the Superior Court Within and for Grady County, State of
Oklahoma.
No. 399,
Harry F. Hitt, a Minor, Suing by Next Friend and Natural
Guardian, Dave Hill, Plaintiff,
vs.
Frank ReyNotps, a Minor, Defendant.
Petition.
The plaintiff suing by his next friend and natural guardian, Dave
Hill, represents that he is a minor, a member of the Choctaw Tribe
of Indians by blood and entitled to an allotment as such, and that
Dave Hill is his father and natural guardian. For cause of action
against the defendant the plaintiff alleges and states.
&
That on July 13, 1903, Charles A. Reynolds appeared at the
Chickasaw Land Office and made application under the act of Con-
gress commonly known as the Choctaw-Chickasaw supplemental
Agreement, for the north half of the south east quarter of section
thirty-two, township seven north, range six west, together with other
lands as the allotment selection for his minor son, Frank Reynolds,
and same was by the commission to the Five Civilized Tribes set
apart to said minor as a portion of his allotment selection.
Il.
That thereafter on August the 13th, 1903, Nellie B. Hill appeared
at the Chickasaw Land Office and made application under said
Supplementary Agreement to have nid land set apart to her
28 minor son, Harry F. Hill as a portion of his allotment selec-
tion and the same having been heretofore selected as herein
stated said commission refused to allow said application.
III.
That on September 26th, 1903, Harry F. Hill by his mother Nellie
B. Hill, filed at the Chickasaw Land Office his complaint alleging
that said lands were improved and under cultivation and that he
was the owner of the improvements thereon and entitled to select
and file on same as a part of his allotment. A copy of said contest
complaint is hereto attached and made a part hereof and marked
a
SLOSE IN CENTER
es
18 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
IV.
That on April 27th, 1904, said allotment contest was called for
trial and on the foilowing day thereafter said trial was concluded
and taken under advisement by said commission and that thereafter
on January the 3rd 1905 said commission rendered its decision in
said contest case awarding said lands to said Harry F. Hill. A copy
of said decision is hereto attached and made a part hereof and
marked “Exhibit B.”
V.
That on February, the 8th, 1905, the contestee filed an appeal
to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and on December 11th, 1906,
said acting commissioner of Indian Affairs rendered his decision in
said contest case affirming the decision of said commission thereto
fore rendered, A copy of said decision is hereto attached, and made
a part hereof and marked Exhibit “C.”
29 VI. |
That an appeal was taken from the decision of the Commissioner,
of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior and that on Febru-
ary 6th, 1907, the Secretary of the Interior affirmed the decision of
the Commissioner of Indian Affairs awarding said land to the said
Harry F. Hill and that thereafter patents were issued to the said
Harry F. Hill to said land. Copies of said patents and said decision
are hereto attached and marked Exhibits “D” and E. F.” That
thereafter a motion for rehearing and a review was filed before the
Secretary of the Interior and on a hearing thereof the acting secre
tary attempted to recall and vacate the departmental decision of
February 6th, 1907, and the former decision of the Commissioner
of Indian Affairs and the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes
and that after rendering said opinion the Acting Secretary recom-
mended that the Department of Justice institute suit to cancel said
patents, that jurisdiction might be restored, and that thereafter the
United States filed suit to cancel same, and that thereafter by agree-
ment with the Department said patents were surrendered to the
Department for cancellation with the understanding that said Harry
F. Hill, contestant, should have a hearing before the department and
that thereafter the acting Secretary of the Interior rendered his
decision awarding said lands to said Frank Reynolds. A copy of
said decision is hereto attached and made a part hereof and marked
“Exhibit F.” That thereafter the contestant by his attorneys filed
a motion for rehearing and review, which motion the department
refused to hear or entertain. A copy of the decision of the Depart-
ment refusing to hear said motion is hereto attached and made a
part hereof and marked “Exhibit G.”
VII.
The department in rendering its decision of May the 9th
30 1911, awarding the lands in controversy to the conteste
committed gross mistake of fact in the following findings, to
ae EE
COPY BOUND
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 19
I.
The department erred in its decision of May the 9th, 1911 in find-
ing as a fact that Blassengame conveyed the land involved to Brimage
prior to the time Blassengame was denied citizenship by the judg-
ment of the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court on December
17th, 1902, and that subsequent to that time Brimage, who was a
citizen of the Choctaw Nation conveyed the land to Reynolds.
Il.
The department in its decision of May the 9th, 1911, erred in
holding as a fact that there was nothing in the record to show that
C. L. Campbell was a citizen by intermarriage of the Chickasaw Na-
tion.
Til.
‘The department erred in its decision of May the 9th 1911, in
| finding as a fact that the lands involved in said contest were not a
part of the home place. *
IV.
The Department erred in its decision of May the 9th, 1911, in
finding as a fact that the guardian Tuttle assigned to each of the
Campbell minors their proportionate share of the land comprising
their father’s estate when said minors reached the age of majority
and in finding that the widow was given undisputed control of
various tracts.
31 V.
The department erred in its decision of May the 9th, 1911, in
finding as a fact that practically all the land in controversy in Jan-
uary 1899 was uncultivated and used mainly if at all for grazing
purposes, and in finding that the field of sixty to seventy-five acres
was broken up but not in cultivation and in nding that said field
could not be definitely located, and in finding that the location of
the fences on the lands involved could not be fixed by the evidence,
and in finding that the fences on the land in controversy formed
no part of the continuous scheme of improvements.
v1.
The department erred in holding as a fact that Blassengame and
his grantees owned the improvements on and were in possession of
about eighty acres of land in contest case 235 as the record shows
that no citizen of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation had ever had
_ possession of said land save the Campbell’s estate, Holmes Campbell
and Dave Hill. A transcript of the testimony taken at the trial of
said allotment contest case is hereto attached and made a part hereof
and marked “Exhibit H.”
LOSE iN CENTER
———
HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
Vil.
The department in its decision of May the 9th, 1911, erred in its
conclusions of law as follows, to-wit:
1
The Department in its decision of May 9th, 1911, erred in its
conclusion of law, and the Court of Pontotoc County in which the
will was probated had no jurisdiction and that the officers of said
Court were prohibited from performicg any acts as such under the
provisions of Section 28 of the Aci of Congress of June the
32 28th, 1898.
Il.
The Department in its decision of May 9th, 1911, erred in its
conclusion of law that said certified copy of the will of C. L. Camp-
bell, deceased, the Judgment of probate and the appointment and
ualification of J. H. Tuttle as guardian were not admissible in evi-
ence because such instruments were only certified to by the officers
of the Indian Court, whose power to act had been taken away by
Section 28 of the Act of Congress of June the 28th, 1898.
III.
The department in its decision of May the 9th, 1911, erred in its
conclusion of law in holding that the bill of sale from Holmes Camp-
bell and J. H. Tuttle to Dave Hill was insufficient to convey any
right to Hill.
IV.
The Department in its decision of May the 9th, 1911, erred in its
conclusion of law in holding that the contestants took no right to
the lands involved by virtue of the several conveyances and that
this contest must be decided upon other grounds disregarding the
claims of contestants and contestees by virtue of the conveyances
relied upon by them as a right to select said land.
LF
The department in its decision of May the 9th, 1911, erred in its
conclusion of law in holding that the claims of the guardian J. H.
Tuttle and the heirs of G. L. Campbell deceased, to the land in con-
troversy were dormant and that the lands had been abandoned.
33 VI.
The Department in its decision of May the 9th, 1911, errea in its
conclusion of law in holding that said guardian and heirs had no
right to the possession of the land and said improvements thereon
which they could convey.
| FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC.
VIL.
The Department by its decision of May the 9th, 1911, erred in its
conclusion of law in holding that the contestees could question the
validity of the conveyance made by the guardian to Dave Hill on the
ground that the sale as made by said guardian was not ordered or
approved by the Probate Court and that by reason thereof said con-
veyance was invalid,
; Vir.
The Department in its decision of May the 9th, 1911, erred in its
conclusion of law in holding that the possession of the land in con-
troversy and the improvements thereon could only be transferred
by guardian under order of the Probate Court and that a sale and
transfer thereof would only be valid after approval and confirma-
tion by such court. +
That the Department after its decision of May the 9th, 1911, issued
patents to the lands involved, that said patents were signed by the
Governor of the Chickasaw Nation and the Principal Chief of the
Choctaw Nation and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, re-
corded in the office of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
delivered to the Contestees and recorded in the office of the Register
of Deeds in Grady County, State of Oklahoma in Book — at Page —
and that said patents cast a cloud upon the title of the plaintiff.
34 X.
Defendant alleges and states that prior to the institution of said
contest case there was a suit pending in the United States District
Court within and for the Southern District of the Indian Territory
at Chickasha involving the right to possession to said land, that said
case was prosecuted for the use and benefit of this plaintiff to the
Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma and a judgment rendered
by said Court for the possession of said land and on return of the
mandate from said court this plaintiff was placed in possession of
all that part of said land which he had not previously held posses-
sion of.
XI.
That upon the facts established without dispute at the hearing
before the Department, its officers fell into an error in the construc-
tion of the law applicable to the case which caused them to refuse
to issue said patents to the plaintiff herein and to give them to the
defendant and that, through gross mistake they fell into a misap-
prehension of the facts proved before them which had the like effect,
that under the facts established by the evidence as shown by the
record and the law applicable ther-to patents to said lands should
have been issued to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff states that he is the owner of and in the actual possession
22 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
of the following described lands and premises situated in Grady
County, State of Oklahoma, to-wit:
The north half of the southeast quarter of section thirty-two, town-
ship seven north, range six west, and that said defendant claims title
in and to said land and premises adverse to the title of this
35 plaintiff by virtue of the issuance of said patents as aforesaid.
Wherefore, plaintiff prays that the court decree that the
defendant hold the title in trust for the plaintiff and that plaintiffs
claim and title to the land and premises is valid and perfect and
that said defendant has no right or title therein and that the title
of plaintiff be quieted in said premises and that the defendant be
perpetually enjoined from setting up or asserting any title or interest
in said lands and premises adverse to this plaintiff, and for such
other relief as may be equitable and proper and for the costs of this
action and will ever pray.
(Signed) STUART, CRUCE & GILBERT,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
(Signed ) BOND & MELTON,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Petition endorsed: Filed Mar. 12, 1913. W. L. Melton, Clerk of
Superior Court.
(Herewith follows copies of exhibits attached to said petition.)
Department of the Interior,
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes,
Chickasaw Land Office.
Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 236.
J. B. Hut, a Minor, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Nellie
B. Hill, Contestant,
vs.
Frank Reynotps, a Minor, Contestee.
Land in controversy: N./2 of S. E./4 of N. E./4 S./2 of N.
E./4 of N. E./4 8. W./4 of N. E./4, Section 32, township 7, north
Range 6 west of the Indian Meridian, containing 80 acres.
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC.
86 With which are consolidated
Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 237.
J.B. Hm, a Minor, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Nellie
B. Hill, Contestant,
vs.
Wire Reynops, a Minor, Contestee.
Land in Controversy: N./2 of the N. E./4, Section 7 North,
Range 6 West, of the Indian Meridian, Containing 80 acres.
Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 238.
Harry F. Hm, a Minor, by His Mother and Natura] Guardian,
Nellie B. Hill, Contestant,
vs.
Frank Reynotps, a Minor, Contestee.
Land in Controversy: N./2 of the S. E./4, Section 32, Town-
ship 7 North, Range 6 West of the Indian Meridian, containing 80
acres.
Exuisir B.
Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 239.
Lewis JaMEs, a Minor, by His Legal Guardian, Dave Hill,
' Contestant,
vs.
SeLpan Reynoxps, a Minor, Contestee.
Land in Controversy: W./2 of the S. W./4, Section 33, township
7 north, Range 6 west of the Indian Meridian, containing 80 acres.
and
Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 240.
Lewis James, a Minor, by His Legal Guardian, Dave Hill,
Contestant,
vs.
Erne. A. Reynotps, a Minor, Contestee.
Land in Controversy: N./2 of the N. E./4 of the N. W./4 W./2
of the N. W./4 Section 33, township 7 north, range 6 west of the
Indian Meridian, containing 100 acres.
Appearances :
For Contestants: Their Guardian, Dave Hill, and Counsel, Bond
& Melton.
For Contestees: Their Guardian, Charles 0, Reynolds and Coun-
sel, Holding & Bailey.
24 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
37 Findings and Decision.
After an investigation of the records of the Commission and due
consideration of the pleadings and evidence in this consolidated case,
the commission finds as follows:
Statement of Record.
The records of the Commission show:
That J. B. Hill, Harry F. Hill, and Lewis James, the contestants
in this consolidated contest, are citizens by blood of the Choctaw
Nation, and that Frank Reynolds, Willie Reynolds, Seldan Rey-
nolds and Ethel A. Reynolds, the contestees in this consolidated con-
test. are citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation, and that each is
ae a to an allotment of the lands of the Choctaw and Chickasaw
ations.
That on July 13, 1903, Charles A. Reynolds appeared at the
Chickasaw Land Office and made application for the land in con-
troversy in Chickasaw allotment contest No. 236, together with other
lands, for his minor son, Frank Revnolds, the contestee in said con-
test, and that the same was by the Commission set apart to him as a
portion of his allotment selection.
That on August 13, 1903, Nellie B. Hill appeared at the Chicka-
saw Land Office and made application to have the land in contro-
versy in Chickasaw Allotment contest No. 236 set apart to her minor
son, J. B. Hill, as a portion of his allotment; and the same having
been theretofore selected, as herein stated, the said Nellie B. Hill
was so notified by the Commission, and the commission refused to
allow her said application.
That on September 26, 1903, the contestant J. B. Hill, by his
mother, Nellie B. Hill, filed herein his complaint, duly verified, in
_ which it is stated:
38 The contestant, Nellie B. Hill, states that J. B. Hill is —
years of age and a citizen of the — Nation. That on the
13th dav of August, 1903, she made application to the commission
to the Five Civilized Tribes at the Tishomingo Land Office to take
in allotment for J. B. Hill the N. 4S. E. 4% N. E. 4 and S. &%
S.E.4%N.E.4%&S. W.4N. E. % Section 32, Township seven
north, range six west, and it appeared of record that on the 13th day
of July, 1903, the said tract of land was selected by Chas. O. Rey-
nolds for Frank Reynolds.
The contestant further states that all of said land is in a state of
cultivation, and that the only improvements situated thereon consist
of fences, etc., that contestant was on the said 13 day of July, 1903,
and is now, the owner of the improvements on said land, and was
then and is now entitled to take, select and file on the same as a
part of the allotment of J. B. Hill.
Wherefore, contestant prays that J. B. Hill be permitted to take
in allotment the tract of land described herein.
That on February 4, 1904, this cause was set for trial on March
— an
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. es
%4, 1904, at 9 o'clock A. M., and notice of contest and suimmons
was issued to contestee.
That on February 12, 1904, return of notice of contest and sum-
mons was filed, showing service on Frank Reynolds, the minor con-
testee, on February 9th, 1904, by delivering a copy thereof to Charles
A. Reynolds, who had said minor in charge.
That on March 24, 1904, this cause was called for trial, and by
agreement of the parties, continued to April 11, 1904, at 9 o'clock
A. M.
That on April 11, 1904, this cause was called for trial; upon mo-
tion —— continued to April 27th, 1904, at 9 o’clock
39 That on April 27th, 1904, this cause was called for trial;
both parties appeared by counsel and announced ready for
trial. By agreement, Chickasaw Allottment contest Nos. 237, 238,
939 and 240 were consolidated with this contest; whereupon this
cause, as consolidated was heard in part, and by agreement con-
tinued to April 28th, 1904 at 9 o’clock A. M.
That on April 28, 1904, this cause was called for trial, both
parties appeared by counsel, whereupon the hearing of this con-
solidated cause was resumed and concluded and taken under advise-
ment by the commission.
That on June 27, 1904, the contestant filed brief, showing ser-
vice of the same by a copy on the attorneys of record for contestee,
on June 27, 1904.
That on August 29, 1904, the contestee filed brief, showing ser-
vice of the same by a copy on the attorneys of record for contestant,
and the same, by agreement, was submitted without reference to
the time in which it was filed.
That on July 13, 1903, Charles A. Reynolds appeared at the
Chickasaw Land Office and made application for the land in con-
troversy in Chickasaw Allotment contest No. 237, together with
other lands, for his minor son, Willie Reynolds, the contestee in
said contest, and the same was by the Commission set apart to him
as a portion of his allotment selection.
That on August 13, 1903, Nellie B. Hill appeared at the Chicka-
saw Land Office and made application to have the land in contro-
versy in Chickasaw Allotment Contest, No. 237 set apart to her minor
son, J. B. Hill, as a portion of his allotment: and the samé having
been theretofore selected, as herein stated, the said Nellie B. Hill
§ was so notified by the Commission, and the Commission refused to
allow her said application.
40 That on September 26, 1903, the contestant, J. B. Hill,
by his mother, Nellie B. Hill. filed herein his complaint,
duly verified, in which it is stated:
“The contestant, Nellie B. Hill states that J. B. Hill, is — years
-of age and a citizen of the — nation. That on the 13th day of Au-
gust, 1903, she made application to the Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes at the Tishomingo land Office to take in allotment
for J. B. Hill, the N. 14, N. E. 4 Section 32, Township 7 North,
Range six west, being eighty acres, and it appeared of record that
26 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET Ad. VS.
on the 13th day of July, 1903, the said tract of land was selected
by Chas. O. Reynolds for Willie Reynolds, minor.
The contestant further states that all of said land is in a state
of cultivation and that the improvements situated thereon consist
of a two room boxed house, sheds, fences, etc., all of the reasonable
value of three hundred dollars; that contestant was on the said 13th
day of July, 1903, and is now the owner of said improvements,
and was then and is now entitled to the immediate possession of
said lands, and entitled to take, select and file on the same as a
part of the allotment of J. B. Hill.
Wherefore, contestant prays that J. B. Hill be permitted to take
in allotment the tract of land herein described.”
That on February 4, 1904, this cause was set for trial on March
24, 1904, at 9 o’clock A. M., and notice of contest and summons
issued to contestee.
That on February 12, 1904, return of notice of contest and sum-
mons was filed, showing service on Willie Reynolds, the minor
contestee, on February 8, 1904, by delivering a copy of the same to
Charles A. Reynolds. who had the said minor in charge.
That on March 24. 1904, this cause was called for trial,
41 and, by agreement of the parties, continued to April 11,
1904, at 9 o’clock A. M.
That on April 11, 1904, this cause was called for trial, and upon
motion of contestant, continued to April 27, 1904, at 9 o’clock A. M.
That on April 27, 1904, this cause was called for trial, both parties
appeared by counsel, and, by agreement, this cause was consoli-
dated with Chickasaw Contest No. 236.
That on July 13, 1903, Charles A. Reynolds appeared at the
Chickasaw Land Office and made ar lication for the land in con-
troversy in Chickasaw Allotment contest No. 238, together with
other lands, for his minor son, Frank Reynolds, the contestee in
said contest, and the same was by the Commission set apart to him
-z a portion of his allotment selection.
That on August 13, 1903, Nellie B. Hill appeared at the Chicka-
saw Land Office and made application to have the land in con-
troversy in Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 238 set apart to her
minor son, Harry F. Hill, as a portion of his allotment; and the
same having been theretofore selected, as herein stated, the said
Nellie B. Hill was so notified by the Commission, and the Com-
mission refused to allow her said application.
That on September 26th, 1903, the contestant, Harry F. Hill by ,
his mother, Nellie B. Hill, filed herein his complaint, duly verified,
in which it is stated:
“The contestant, Nellie B. Hill, states that Harry F. Hill is —
years of age and a citizen of the — Nation. That on the 13th day
of August, 1903, she made application to the Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes at the Tishomingo Land Office to take in
allotment for Harry F. Hill the N. %, S. E. %4, Section 32, town-
ship seven north, range six west, and it appeared of record
42 that on the 13th day of July, 1903, the said tract of land was
selected by Chas. O. Reynolds for Frank Reynolds.
COPY BOUND
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 27
The contestant further states that about seventy acres of said
land is in a state of cultivation and the balance in pasture; that
the improvements on said land consist of fences, etc., that the
contestant was on the said 13th day of July, 1903, the owner of the
improvements situated thereon, and was then and is now entitled
to the immediate possession of said land, and entitled to take, select
and file on the same as a part of Harry F. Hill’s allotment.
Wherefore, contestant prays that Harry F. Hill be permitted to
take in allotment the tract of land herein described.”
That on February 4, 1904, this cause was set for trial on March
24, 1904, at 9 o’clock A. M. and notice of contest and summons
was issued to contestee.
That on February 12, 1904, return of notice of contest and sum-
mons was filed, showing service on Frank Reynolds, the minor
contestee on February 9, 1904, by delivering a copy thereof to
Charles A. Reynolds, who had said minor charge.
That on March 24, 1904, this cause was called for trial, and, by
— of the parties continued at April 11, 1904, at 9 o’clock
That on April 11, 1904, this cause was called for trial and upon
ote of the contestant, continued to April 27, 1904, at 9 o’clock
That on April 27, 1904, this cause was called for trial, both
parties appeared by counsel and announced ready for trial and by
agreement, this cause was consolidated with Chickasaw allotment
contest No. 236.
43 That on July 13, 1903, Charles A. Reynolds appeared at
the Chickasaw Land Office and made application for the land
in controversy in Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 239, together
with other lands, for his minor son, Seldan Reynolds, the con-
testee in said contest. and the same was by the Commission set
apart to him as a portion of his allotment selection.
That on August 13, 1903, Dave Hill appeared at the Chickasaw
Land Office and made application to have the land in controversy
in Chickasaw Allotment Contest Case No. 239 set apart to his minor
ward, Lewis James, as a portion of his allotment; and the same
having been theretofore selected, as herein thé said Dave Hill was
go notified by the Commission, and the Commission refused to al-
_ low his said application.
That on Sentember 26th. 1903, the contestant, Lewis James, by
his lecal guardian, Dave Hill, filed herein his complaint, duly veri-
fied in which it is stated.
“The contestant Dave Hill states that Louis James is — years
of age and a citzon of the — Nation; ‘That on the 13th day of
~ Auoust. 1903, he made application to the Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes at the Chickasaw Land Office to take in allotment
for Louis James the W. 14, S. W. 14, Section 33, Township seven
North, Range six west, and it appeared of record that on the 13th
day of July 1903. the said tract of land was selected by one Chas.
0. Reynolds for Sheldan Reynolds.
The contestant further states that all of said land is in a state
Toe ee
CLOSE IN CENTER
ee
98 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
of cultivation and that the imnrovements situated thereon con.
sists of fences, etc., that the contestant was on the said 13th day of
July, 1903, and is now the owner of the improvements on said land,
ahd was then and is now entitled to the immediate posses.
44 sion of the same, and entitled to take, select and file on said
land as a part of Louis James’ allotment.
Whetefore, contestant prays that Louis James be permitted to take
in allotment the tract of land herein described.”
That on February 4, 1904, this cause was set for trial on March 24.
1904 at 9 o’clock A. M., and notice of contest and summons was
issued to contestee. .
That on February 12, 1904, return of notice of contest and sum.
mons was filed, showing service on Seldan Reynolds, the minor con
testee, on February 9. 1904, by delivering a copy thereof to Charle
A. Reynolds, who had said minor in charge.
That on March 24, 1904, this cause was called for trial and b
= of the parties, continued to April 11, 1904, at 9 o’cloe
That on April 11, 1904, this cause was called for trial and upon
motion of contestant, continued to April 27, 1904, at 9 o’clock A. M
That on April 27, 1904, this cause was called for trial, both partie
appeared by counsel and announced ready for trial, and, by agree
sg gg cause was consolidated with Chickasaw Allotment contes
0. 236.
That on July 13, 1903, Charles A. Reynolds appeared at the Chick
asaw Land Office and made application for the land in controversy
in Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 240, together with other lands
for his minor daughter, Ethel A. Reynolds, the contestee in sai¢
contest, and the same was by the Commission set apart to her as ¢
portion of her allotment selection.
That on August 13, 1903, Dave Hill appeared at the Chickasay
Land Office and made application to have the land in con
45 troversy in Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 240, set apar
to his minor ward, Lewis James, as a portion of his allotment
and the same having been theretofore selected, as herein stated, thi
said Dave Hill was so notified by the Commission, and the Commis
sion refused to allow his said application.
That on September 26, 1903, the contestant, Lewis James, by hi
legal guardian, Dave Hill, filed herein his cimplaint, duly verified
in which it is stated:
“The contestant, Dave Hill, states that Louis James is — years 0
age and a citizen of the — Nation. That on the 13th day of August
1903, he made application to the Commission of the Five Civilizec
Tribes at the Chickasaw Land Office to take in allotments for Lewi
James the N. % N. FE. 4 N. W. 4 and W. 1% N. W. 4 Section 33
Township seven north, range six west, and it appeared of record tha
on the 13th day of July, 1903, the said tract of land was selected by
Chas. 0. Reynolds, for Ethel A. Reynolds.
The contestant further states that there is located on the abov
_ described lands one boxed house, sheds and out-houses and fence
of the reasonable value of two hundred dollars; that about ninet
acres of said lands is in a state of cultivation and the balance i
es ee = -- kee
COPY BOUND
we
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 2?
pasture; that the contestant was on the said 13th day of July and is
now the owner of said improvements on said lands and was then
and is now entitled to the immediate possessiea of the same and en-
titled to take, select and file on said land as a part of Louis James’
allotment. r
Wherefore, contestant prays that Louis James be permitted to
take in allotment the track of land herein described.”
That on February 4, 1904, this cause was set for trial on
46 March 24, 1904, at 9 o’clock A. M. and notice of contest and
summons was issued to contestee.
That on February 12, 1904, return of notice of contest and sum-
mons was filed, showing service on Ethel A. Reynolds, the minor
contestee, on February 9 1904, by delivering a copy thereof to
Charles A. Reynolds, who had said minor in charge.
That on March 24, 1904, this cause was called for trial and by
agreement of parties, was continued to April 11, 1904, at nine o’clock
A. M.
That on April 11, 1904, this cause was called for trial, and upon
motion of the contestant was continued to April 27, 1904, at nine
o'clock A. M.
That on April 27, 1904, this cause was called for trial, both par-
ties appeared by counsel and announced ready for trial, and, by
aoe = cause was consolidated with Chickasaw Allotment con-
test No. ‘
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
The evidence in this consolidated case shows that the land in con-
troversy was a part of a large tract of land enclosed about twenty-five
years ago by one C. L. Campbell, and was controlled by him until
his death; that said Campbell died in the year 1896, leaving sur-
viving him his widow and five minor children ; that prior to his death
he- executed his last will and testament, by the terms of which he
devised and bequeathed to his widow, Sallie L. Campbell, and to his
five children, Mont, Holmes, Lawrence, John and Rex among other
property, the improvements on all the lands of which he died pos-
sessed, share and share alike, the widow to take a child’s part.
The will further provides that W. L. Sawyer was to be appointed
administrator of the estate, and that James H. Tuttle should
47 be appointed guardian of the persons and estates of testator’s
minor children; that the administrator and guardian was
each to enter into a good and sufficient bond in double the amount
of the value of the property coming into their hands, which bonds
were to be approved by the court. The will shortly after the death
of testator, was admitted to probate in the probate court of the county
of Pontotoc, Chickasaw Nation, Indian Territory, and the bonds of
Sawyer and Tuttle were filed and approved.
By further and other clauses in said will and testament, the widow,
Sallie L. Campbell was to be given her pro rate share of the estate
as soon after the death of testator as convenient, and the guardian
was to have full charge of the property and funds of the minor heirs
until they arrived at the age of their majority. As each became of
Cat
CLOSE IN CENTER
a
a
age, he was to be given his pro rata share, and three of the boys have
since become of age and have been apportioned their shares of the
property. Two of the heirs are still mizors and have not received
control of their property, and the guardian has never been dis
charged.
The improvements on the land in controversy were no part of the
improvements set aside to Sallie L. Campbell, or which she elected
to select, but it appears from the evidence that she, on the 21st da
of January, 1899, transferred for a valuable consideration to one’ J,
W. Blassengame, a court claimant, all her right title and interest in
and to the land in controversy, together with other lands. About
one month thereafter, said Blassengame took possession of the land
and he and his grantees have remained jn possession the greater por
tion thereof since the date of his entry thereon. The balance of the
land, being a part of the N. % of the S. E. 4 of Section 32 and the
W. % of the S. W. % of the S. W. % of section 33, has been for
nearly two years in the possession of Dave Hill, the father of two of
the minor contestants herein and the legal guardian of the
48 other one, he having purchased the possessory title to same,
as hereinafter set forth, and also from Holmes Campbell, to
whom same had been awarded on his reaching majority, as a portion
of his share of his father’s estate.
‘The number of acres in this /and described tract which had been
in possession of Dave Hill need not be determined, as the contest
will be decided on other grounds, and the conclusions reached will
include all of the lands in suit. :
On November 18, 1902, James H. Tuttle, as guardian of the minor
heirs, joined by the surviving widow of C. L. Campbell, then the wife
of one Dr. Minter, and joined also by the adult heirs of said C. L.
Campbell, executed and delivered to said Dave Hill a certain bill of
sale, transferring to him all of the improvements on the land in
controversy.
After his purchase as aforesaid, Hill demanded possession of the
premises from Blassengame, and on the refusal of Blassengame t
deliver possession, Hill instituted his suit in ejectment against Blas
sengame in the United States District Court for the Southern Distrid
of the Indian Territory, on November 25, 1902, which suit has no
yet been proceeded to judgment. P
On December 10, 1902, Blassengame transferred by two certain
bills of sale the controverted land to John W. Brimage, a citizen by
intermarriage. Brimage failed to pay the agreed consideration for
said lands and later, to-wit, on the 6th day of March, 1903, he, al
Blassengame’s request, transferred said premises to Charles A.
Reynolds, the father and guardian of minor contestees herein.
Contestants base their right to have the controverted land set apar
to them as portions of their allotment selections by reason of the pur
chase from James H. Tuttle, et al., on November 18, 1902, and all
that the sale to Blassengame by Sallie L. Campbell conveyed no tith
as she had no title therein to convey.
49 Contestees show purchase from Mrs. Campbell, and shor
that they have been in possession for over four years of all the
land in controversy with the exception of the land heretofore show?
an HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
_—— - a
COPY BOUND
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. ;
to be in the possession of Hill. They maintain that by this sale
title passed and maintain that even though the sale by Mrs. Camp-
bell to Blassengame was not good, yet so far as the contestants are
concerned, the property has been abandoned, and contestees being
in possession and being the first to file thereon, should be
awarded the land. They further maintain, that under the laws of
the Chickasaw Nation, Tuttle, as guardian, could not dispose of the
rty without authority and approval of the court, and Tuttle
admits that he did not procure authority and that the sale was not
roved. They maintain that the sale was void. They also main-
tain that the land was a part of an excessive holding.
It is shown from the evidence that Blassengame knew at the time
he purchased from Mrs. Campbell that the premises belonged to the
Campbell estate, and that the last will and testament of said Camp-
bell dividing said estate was then being probated. It is shown
that Tuttle, as soon as he learned of the sale by Mrs. Campbeli,
notified Blassengame that the premises were in his control, as
guardian, and that he (Blassengame) could not retain possession of
the same. It is shown, also, that Brimage knew of the claims of
Tuttle prior to the time he purchased said land from Blassengame.
It is also shown that Reynolds, the father of the minor contestees
herein, was aware of the fact that suit in ejectment had been brought
against Blassengame at the time he purchased from Brimage and
Blassengame. No trickery or fraud can be alleged. Blassengame
and his grantees went into possession with their eyes open and were
prepared to fight for the land.
The lands were not a part of an unlawful holding, as at
50 _— the time Tuttle, et al., sold to Dave Hill, the ninety days’ lim-
| itation after the ratification of the Choctaw-Chickasaw Agree-
ment (32 Stat. L., 641) had not expired. It was the privilege of all
B excessive holders to dispose of their excess holdings during the ninety
days.
The lands were not abandoned, as they were entered upon by
Blassengame without the consent or connivance of Tuttle and the
heirs of-the Campbell estate interested therein, and possession was
retained by Blassengame contrary to the express demand of Tuttle,
asguardian, Tuttle was not required to institute proceedings in court
to maintain the interest of his wards in the land. Both the Atoka
Agreement (30 Stat. L. 591), and the Choctaw-Chickasaw treaty
(32 Stat., L. 641) contain provisions that the Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes shall have authority to settle all controversies
arising relative to the right to select certain tracts of land in allot-
ment.
The law of the Chickasaw Nation that two years’ absence and non-
control constitute an abandonment, is not now in force. It is not
binding upon the Commission. The Commission, however, considers
this law in its decision in so far as it indicates the usages and cus-
toms of the citizens of the Chickasaw tribe. The rule will not apply
in this case. The improvements were the property of minors, and
BH possession was at all times retained by Blassengame and his grantees,
F contrary to the will and consent of Tuttle, the legal guardian.
|
J
CLOSE IN CENTER
TT
32 |
HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
It is contended that the sale made by Tuttle as guardian of the
minor heirs is void for the reason that Tuttle was not authorized to
make the sale and the sale was not confirmed by the court.
The improvements on land in the Indian Territory which is sub-
ject to allotment partakes of the nature both of personalty
51 and of real property. The interest of a citizen in the im.
provements on lands to the extent of his allotment, carrying
with it a right of occupancy and the right to select his allotment so
as to include such improvements. is no more than a personal inter.
est. The interest of the same citizen in the improvements on iand!
in excess of his allotment, and which he does not desire to take in
allotment, and which he had the right to dispose of within ninety
days after the ratification of the last agreement (supra) is a personal
property interest.
In this case, the Campbell estate consisted of some ten or fifteen
thousand acres of land. Each of his six heirs could select one allot
ment. By an Act of Congress they were given ninety days to dis
pose of the improcements on all Jarids in excess of the amount which
they could allot. This excess partoc!. of the nature of personal prop-
erty, and the law as to the sale of personal property would apply.
This being true, it was not only the right of the guardian but aiso
his duty, to dispose of any improvements owned by his wards on
land in excess of their allottable shares within the time limited by
law. Under the law of Arkansas as to guardian and ward, the sale
of the personalty of his ward by the guardian is not prohibited by
statute. No prohibition being placed on such sale by statute or by
express order of the court, it comes within the scope of the powers of
the guardian. The conveyance to Hill signed by the adult heirs and
by Tuttle, as guardian, must be considered good. The guardian
had authority to make the sale. His bond is the protection of the.
minor heirs in case the sale was made for an inadequate consider-
ation.
The conveyance by Mrs. Campbell passed no title. She had none
to convey. She had accepted her pro rata share of the premises. She
took the home place, upon which there were valuable improve
52 ments. She had taken three allotments out of the land.
Blassengame knew that the land was a part of the Campbell
estate. He cannot now set up that he was an innocent purchaser.
It is true that Blassengame has placed valuable improvements on
the land, but he had had the land for four years and has paid no
rent therefor, and he has undoubtedly been fully compensated for
such improvements. Brimage and Reynolds knew of the claim of
Tuttle to the land, and cannot be said to be innocent purchasers.
The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the land in con-
troversy should be awarded to the contestants.
Judgment.
It is, therefore, the judgment of the Commission that the north
half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, the south half
of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, and the southwest
COPY BOUND
eat iene en
) FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 33
quarter of the northeast quarter of section thirty-two, township seven
north, range six west of the Indian Meridian, containing eighty (80)
acres, and being the land in controversy in Chickasaw Allotment
Contest No. 236, be awarded to J. B. Hill, minor contestant thereon ;
that the north half of the northeast quarter of Section thirty-two,
township seven north, range six west of the Indian Meridian, con-
taining eighty (80) acres and being the land in contre ’ in Chick-
asaw Allotment Contest No, 237, be awarded to J. B. Hiu, ,ainor con-
testant therein ; that the north half of the southeast quarter of section
thirty-two, township seven north, range six west of the Indian
Meridian, containing eighty (80) acres, and being the land in con-
troversy in Chickasaw Allotment contest No. 238, be awarded to
Harry F. Hill, minor contestant therein; that the west half of the
southwest quarter of Section thirty-three, township seven north, range
six west of the Indian Meridian, containing eighty (80)
58 acres, and being the land in controversy in Chickasaw Allot-
ment contest No. 239 be awarded to Lewis James, minor
contestant therein; that the north half of the northeast quarter of
the northwest quarter and the west half of the northwest quarter of
» Section thirty-three, township seven north, range six west of the
Indian Meridian, containing one hundred (100) acres, and being
the land in controversy in Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 240, be
awarded to Lewis James, minor contestant therein; and that the
records of the Chickasaw Land Office be made to conform in all
things to this decision.
TAMS BIXBY, Chairman.
I. B. NEEDLES, Commissioner.
C. R. BRECKENRIDGE, Commissioner.
Dated this 3rd day of January, 1905.
Copy.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Orrice or INDIAN AFFAIRS,
Wasuineton, December 11, 1905.
Refer in reply to the following land:
. W. Hitt, a Minor, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Nellie B.
Hill, Contestant,
vs.
Frank Reynotps, a Minor, by His Father and Natural Guardian,
Chas. O. Reynolds, Contestee.
Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 236.
Land in controversy: The N./2 of 8. E./4 of N. E./4, the S./2
of 8. E./4 of N. E./4 and 8. W./4 of N. E./4 of Sec. 32, Twp. 7 N.,
R. 6 West, containing 80 acres. :
38—337
rie.
CLOSE iN CENTER
co
34 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
J. B. Hutt, a Minor, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Nellie B,
Hill, Contestant,
vs.
Wixure Reynoxps, a Minor, by His Father and Natural Guardian,
Chas. O. Reynolds, Contestee.
Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 237.
Land in controversy: The N./2 of the N. E./4 of Sec. 32; Twp. 7
North, Range 6 West, containing 80 acres.
54 Harry F. Hit, a Minor, by His Mother and Natural Guard-
ian, Nellie B. Hill, Contestant.
vs.
Frank Reynops, a Minor, by His Father and Natural Guardian,
Chas. O. Reynolds, Contestee.
Chickasaw Allotment Contest No. 238.
Land in controversy: The North half of the southeast quarter
Sec, 32, Twp. 7, Range 6 west, containing 80 acres.
Ex. C.
Lovis James, a Minor, by His Legal Guardian, Dave Hill, Con-
testant, |
vs. |
Suetpan Reyno.ps, a Minor, by His Father and Natural Guardian
Chas. O. Reynolds, Contestee. |
Chickasha Allotment Contest No. 239.
Land in controversy: The W./2 of the S. W./4 of Sec. 33 T. 7 N.
Range 6 West, containing 80 acres.
Lewis James, by His Legal Guardian, Dave Hill, Contestant,
vs.
Ernet A. Reynoups, a Minor, by Her Father and Natural Guar
ian, Chas. O. Reynolds, Contestee. —
Chickasha Allotment Contest No. 240.
Land in Controversy: The N./2 of the N. E./4 of the N. W./4 an
the W./2 of N. W./4 of Sec. 33 T. 7 N., R. 6 W., containing 10
acres,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, Muskogee, Indian Ten
tory.
Siz: This office is in receipt of the communication of the Commi
sion of March 25, 1905, transmitting the record on appeal in Chie
COPY BOUNI
<a ttnceee nen natn on
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 85
asaw Allotment contest No. 236, consolidated, entitled Hill vs. Rey-
nolds.
The record shows that the contestants, J. B. Hill, Harry W. Hill
and Lewis James are citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and
the contestees are citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation,
55 and that each is entitied to an allotment of the lands of the
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations.
Charles O. Reynolds appeared at the Chickasaw Land Office on
July 13, 1903, and made application for the land in controversy
in Contest No. 236, together with other lands, for his minor son,
Frank Reynolds, the minor contestee in said contest, and the same
was set apart by the Commission to him as a portion of his allotment
selection.
Nellie B. Hill appeared at the Chickasaw Land Office August 13,
1903, and made application to have the land in controversy in Chick-
asaw Allotment Contest No, 236, set apart to her minor son, J. B.
Hill, as a portion of his allotment, and the same having been there-
tofore selected, as above stated, the said Nellie B. Hill was so notified
by the Commission and her application disallowed.
September 25, 1903, J. B. Hill, minor contestant, by his mother,
Nellie B. Hill, filed herein his complaint duly verified, in which
it is stated.
The contestant Nellie B, Hill, states that J, B. Hill is — years
of age and a citizen of the — nation. That on the 13th day of
August, 1903, she made application to the Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes at the Tishomingo Land Office to take in allotment
for J. B. Hill, the N./2 S. E./4 N. E./4 and 8./2 8. E./4 N. E./4
and 8S. W./4 N. E./4 Section 32, Township seven north, range six
west and it appeared of record that on the 1-th day of July, 1903,
the said tract of land was selected by Chas, O. Reynolds, for Frank
r Reynolds,
The contestant further states that all of said land is in a state of
cultivation and that the only improvements situated thereon consists
Bt of fences, etc., that contestant was on the said 13th day of July, 1903,
and is now, the owner of the improvements on said land, and was
then and is now entitled to the immediate possession of the same,
and entitled to take, select and file on the same as a part of
56 the allotment of J. B. Hill.
Wherefore, contestant prays that J. B. Hill be permitted
to take in allotment the tract of land herein described.
February 4, 1904, this cause was set for trial on March 24, 1904,
pat 9 o’clock a. m., and notice of contest and summons was filed with
the commission showing service on Frank Reynolds, the minor con-
@ testee, on February 9, 1904 by delivering a copy thereof to Charles
ya O. Reynolds, the person having said minor in charge.
This cause was called for trial on March 24, 1904, and by agree-
ment of the parties, continued to April 11, 1904, at 9 o’clock a. m.,
on which date it was again called, and on motion of the contestant,
was continued to April 27, 1904, at 9 o’clock a. m.
; Similar proceedings were had in Contests Nos. 237, 238, 239 and
240, to April 27th, 1904, except as to names of the parties and
D CLOSE IN CENTER
oe
36 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
the descriptions of the lands in each case, which differences are fully
get out in the caption hereof, and on which date, by agreement of the
parties, these cases were consolidated with Chickasaw Allotment Con-
test No. 236.
This cause, as consolidated above, was called for trial on April
27th, 1904, both parties appeared by counsel and announced ready
for trial, whereupon this cause was heard in part, and continued
to April 28, 1904, at 9 o’clock a. m., on which date the cause was
again called for trial, both parties appeared by counsel and the hear-
ing was resumed and concluded, and the cause taken under advise-
ment by the Commission.
The contestant filed brief on June 27, 1904, showing service by
a copy on the attorneys of record for contestee on the same date.
The contestee filed brief on September 1, 1904, showing service
" of same by a copy on the attorneys of record for contestant,
57 and by agreement it was submitted without reference to the
time in which it was filed.
The commission to the Five Civilized Tribes rendered its decision
in the cause on January 3, 1905, and awarded all the land in contest
to the contestants, and on January 7, 1905, notice of decision was
issued and served on the attorneys of the parties by registered mail,
and the contestees allowed thirty days within which to appeal.
Contestees filed an appeal on February 8, 1905, showing personal
service of a copy thereof on the attorneys of record for the contestants
ont February 4, 1905. Contest’ sets out thirteen assignments of
error on the part of the Comm’ sion on which he asks a reversal ¢
the decree and judgment repaered on January 3, 1905, as follows:
1. The Honorable Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes erred}
in finding upon the evidence.
2. The Honorable Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes erred
in their finding under the law.
3 For error of the Commission in finding that the conveyane
from Mrs. C, L. Campbell to J. A. Blassingame was void and without
validity.
4. For error of the commission in holding that Mrs. C. L. Camp
bell had selected as her complete pro rata share and allotment, land
other than conveyed to Blassingame.
5. For error of the Commission in finding that said lands conveyet
to J. W. Blassingame were the legal and lawful holdings of said
Campbell estate.
6. The Commission erred in considering the will of C. L. Campbell
deceased, no evidence being introduced to show the validity of saic
will, and no proper authentication of said will being made.
7. The commission erred in holding that the Chickasa
58 laws had no application to the adjudication of these contests
8. The commission erred in holding that personal prope
of an estate may be disposed of at the will of the guardian.
9. The Commission erred in holding that the conveyance by J.
Tuttle vested any rights in contestant Hill.
10° The Commission erred in finding that the said lands conveyed
to the said Hill were surplus holdings of any heir of the said Camp
COPY BOUND |
——
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC.
bell estate, and that any heir of said estate had not selected their legal
and lawful surplus. : :
11. The Commission erred in holding that any rights vested in
said Tuttle by reason of said area ame
12. For error of the Commission in holding that Blassingame was
not an innocent purchaser.
13. The Commission erred in finding that any other land had
ever been assigned to Mrs. Campbell, the surviving widow.
14. The contestant filed a reply to said appeal on March 8, 1905,
showing personal service of a “es | thereof on the attorneys of reco
for contestee on March 2, 1905. March 21, 1905, contestant filed his
brief and argument in support of same, showing personal service —
a copy thereof on the attorneys of record for contestee on March
20, 1905.
Contestant filed motion to dismiss contestee’s appeal on September
18th, 1905, for the reason that it was not filed within the time al-
lowed by the rules, which motion was served on the attorney for
contestee on the same date.
Contestee filed reply to said motion to dismiss appeal on September
21, 1905, showing service on Bond & Melton, contestant’s attorneys
) of record by registered mail on September 21, 1905.
59 The record shows that contestee filed his appeal with the
Commission on February 8, 1905, whereas his time was up on
February 7, 1905. There is an affidavit in the record showing that
the appeal was deposited in the post-office at Chickasha, Indian
Territory, in the forenoon of February 5, 1905, which day was
Sunday, and that there are mails leaving the Chickasha post-office
on Sunday afternoon that should reasonably reach Tishomingo the
following day. The appeal itself shows that Bond & Melton acknowl-
edged service of same on February 4, 1905, so that contestant was
in no way hampered, inconvenienced or delayed because of the
fact that the appeal did not reach the files of the Commission until
February 8, 1905. The object and purpose of rules of practice is
to expedite business, and in order to accomplish their purpose and
not work a hardship are to be construed in a reasonable and just
manner. On the showing made in this case, it would seem that
contestee’s attorney used due diligence in preparing his appeal, and
that contestant was served within the time allowed by rule, and that
contestee’s attorney might reasonably have expected same to reach
the Commission in due course of mail within the time allowed. Un-
der the circumstances shown in this case, it would be a hardship
to strictly construe the rule and shut him out of his right to be heard
on his appeal. The motion to dismiss is accordingly denied.
The contestant bases his right to be allotted this land on the
ground of being the owner of the improvements thereon; that he
is the owner of said improvements by virtue of a quit-claim deed
executed to his father, Dave Hill, by James H. Tuttle, M. T. Camp-
bell, Sallie L. Minter, L. A. Campbell and Holmes Campbell, on
November 18, 1902, for a consideration of $1600; that James
60 H. Tuttle was the guardian of the minor heirs of one C, L.
Campbell deceased, and signed said quit-claim deed as such
iy ores
CLOSE IN CENTER
HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS, <a
— while those heirs who had attained their majority since
. L. Campbell’s decease, viz: L. A. Campbell and Holmes Campbell
signed in order to convey their interest in said estate, while the
widow, now Mrs. Sallie Minter, signed her interest in said land away,
- by joining in this quit-claim deed; that said James H. Tuttle wag
in fall and absolute control of all of said land as such guardian,
and holding same in trust for the widow and heirs of the aforemen.
tioned C. L. Campbell, deceased.
Contestee claims the land in contest by virtue of the ownershi
of the improvements thereon, having purchased same on March é
1903, from one John W. Brimage, who had purchased from J. W,
Blassingame, December 10, 1902, and Blassingame derived his
title from S. L. Campbell, the widow of C. L. Campbell, by quit
claim deed executed January 21, 1899. Contestee also denies the
right of Tuttle to control or convey said lands at the time he did so.
convey to Dave Hill, and further that said lands were a part of the
excess holdings of C. L, Campbell, deceased, and consequently
public domain. :
The evidence shows that the land in controversy was a part of a
large tract of land that had been segregated from the public domain{
and enclosed some twenty-five years before the hearing of one (,
L. Campbell, and was in his possession and control up to the time
of his death in October 1896; that at his deceased he left survivin
him his widow, Sallie L. Campbell, and five minor children, fe
two married daughters; that prior to his death he executed his last
will and testament and devised and bequeathed to his widow, Sallie
L. Campbell, and to his five minor children all the improvements
on the lands of which he died pessessed; share and share alike, the
widow to take a child’s part; that the will appointed one W.
61 L. Sawyer, administrator of the estate and James H. Tuttle
guardian of the persons and estates of’ the minor children,
both to enter into bonds in double the amount of the value of the
property to come ino their hands, and said bonds to be approved by
the court; that shortly after Campbell’s death his will was probated
in the probate court of the County of Pontotoc, Chickasaw Nation,
Indian Territory, and the bonds of Sawyer and Tuttle were filed
and approved, and they entered upon their duties.
Contestee does not argue or cite any authorities in support of his
first, second, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and thirteenth assignments 0
error, or in any manner show whereby any error was committed
by the Commission, and it is presumed that he does not rely on these
assignments as cause for reversal. The third assignment is not sup4
ported by the case of Tucker v. Daniels, Creek Contest No. 499,
the facts in the case under consideration being entirely different
from the facts in the case of Tucker v. Daniels, To the sixth
assignment of error it is sufficient to say that a true copy of ¢,
L. Campbell’s will is a part of the record of the case, duly authenti-
cated by the hand and act of the clerk of the Probate Court, which
was sufficient especially when no objection was interposed therets
at the time of the hearing.
The evidence shows that at the time of the hearing, the widow,
pa NIE Ns as
COPY BOUI
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC.
now Mrs. S. L. Minter, had received per pro rata share of the entire
estate, and that she and her husband and his daughter had used the
same for allotments. The improvements on the land in controversy
were not a part of the improvements set apart to Mrs. Campbell as
her pro rata share. The evidence is that Mrs. Campbell at the time
she conveved to Blassingame was working this land with her teams,
but as a tenant of the estate, and that she paid rents to the
62 guardian in the way of a division of the corn that was grown
4 on the place, and that the guardian “O. K.ed.” the contracts
she made with her subtenants. and was in full control of all the estate
lands, doing the renting, selling and managing of the proceeds as
such guardian, There was no error in the finding that Mrs. C. L.
Campbell, (Mrs. Minter had selected her full pro rata share and
allotment of lands, other than those conveyed to Blassingame.
_It was not error for the Commission to find that the lands, sold
to J. W. Blassincame were the legal and lawful holdings of the
Campbell estate. for the reason that at the time Tuttle, Mrs. Sallie
L. Minter. M. T. Campbell, 1. A. Campbell and Holmes Campbell
sold and quit claimed to Dave Hill, the time limit of ninety days
allowed _to dispose of excessive holdings had not expired (32 Stat.
641.) It was the privilege of all excessive holders to dispose of their
excessive holdings during this ninety days. It was not only the
privilege, but in this case it became the duty of Tuttle to dispose of
said improvements for the benefit of his minor wards.
Section 24 of the Act of Congress, approved July 1, 1902, (32
Stat. 641) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes to determine from all matters relating to allot-
ment of lands, and it is not bound by the Chickasaw laws in mak-
ing such allotments, and so committed no error in not recognizing
~ such Chickasaw laws as binding on it in passing on matters relating
~ to these allotments.
Contestee’s ninth assignment is that the Commission erred in
holding that the conveyance of J. H. Tuttle vested any right in con-
testant Hill, and his eleventh assignment of error in holding that
Tuttle had any rights by reason of his guardianship, may be con-
sidered together. Contestee contends that there is no Chickasaw
or Choctaw law providing for the appointment of guardians
63 for minors, simply as minors. The Chickasaw law did pro-
vide for the appointment by the County Judge of guardians
for orphan children that are not of age, while it is commonly under-
) stood the word “orphan” means a child who has been bereaved of
both father and mother, the term may legally apply to such person
as has lost only one of his parents, and this would seem to be a
case where such a construction should be placed upon it. Such
was undoubtedly the construction placed upon the term by the Pro-
bate Court of Pontotoe County, when it appointed Tuttle such guard-
ian for the minor heirs of C. L. Campbell. The rights and duties
of a guardian attached to James H. Tuttle by virtue of his appoint-
ment as such by the Probate Court of Pontotoc County, Chickasaw
Nation. Did he have authority as such guardian of the minor
D CLOSE IN CENTER
ee
40 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS,
heirs to sell the improvements located on the controverted land?
If the property be real property, he could not sell without an order
from Court. The interest of a citizen in the improvements on lands
to the extent of his allotment, carrying with it, as it does, the right
of occupancy and the right to select his allotment so as to include
his improvements, it more than a personal interest. But the interest
of the same citizen to improvements on land in excess of what he
desires to allot and which he had the right to dispose of within
the ninety days after the ratification of the Supplemental Agree
ment, is a personal property interest.
The Campbell estate consisted of something over ten thousand
acres of land. The heirs had all selected or designated their allot-
ments. Congress gave them ninety days to dispose of the improve
ments on the excess. The improvements could be sold, or in the
case of fences and buildings could be removed from the land. The
excess partook of the nature of personal property, and the law as
to the sale of personal property would apply. It was the duty
64 of the guardian to dispose of these improvements during the
ninety days allowed for doing so. There being no prohibi-
tion placed on a guardian’s sale of the personalty of his ward by
statute or by express order of the court appointing him, it was within
the scope of his powers and authority as a guardian to make such
sale, and the quit-claim deed to Hill, signed by the adult heirs and
by- Tuttle as guardian of the minor heirs, must be considered
good. Tuttle will have to account to the minor heirs for their
share of the proceeds when he settles with them and asks for his
discharge by the court appointing him, and his bond is the pro
tection of the minor heirs for any failure to do so or any inadequacy
of consideration.
.Was Blassingame an innocent purchaser? The evidence shows
that he knew at the time he purchased from Mrs. Campbell that the
premises belonged to the Campbell estate. It is further shown that
as soon as he learned of the sale by Mrs.,Campbell, Tuttle notified
Blassingame that he was in control of the premises as guardian, and
that Blassingame could not retain possession. It is shown that
Blassingame went into possession not later than February 15, 1899,
and that he was notified by Tuttle’s foreman, Ladd, that he could
not hold the land within from thirty to fifty days after going into
possession. This would bring his notice at farthest, early in April,
1899, and the evidence shows that he paid $270. of the consideration §
money on June 7, 1899. Brimage also knew of Tuttle’s claim prio
to his purchase from Blassingame. The evidence further show- that
Reynolds, the father of the minor contestees herein knew that a
suit in ejectment had been instituted against Blassingame. Blass-
ingame and his grentees went into possession with their eyes open
and were prepared to fight for the land, and neither Blassingamé
nor his grantees can be said to be innocent purchasers.
65 This office is of the opinion that no error was committed
by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes and that the
decision and judgment should be and the same is, hereby affirmed.
COPY BOUND
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC, 41
You are —— to give the interested parties notice hereof,
und to advise them of their right of further appeal.
Very respectfully,
C. F. LARRABEE,
Acting Commissioner.
6 Department of the Interior,
Washington.
Consolidated Chickasaw Allotment Contest.
No. 236.
|. B. Hrxt, a Minor, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Nellie
'B. Hill, epee
‘RANK REYNOLDs, a Minor, by His Father and Natural Guardian,
Charles O. Reynolds, Contestee.
Land in Controversy: N./2 S. E./4; 8./2 S. E./4 N. E./4 and
. W./4 of N. E./4 of Section 32, T. 7 N., R. 6 W. containing 80
eres,
No. 237.
. B. Hitz, a Minor, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Nellie
B. Hill, Contestant,
. ¥,
VitL1E Reynoups, a Minor, by His Father and Natural Guardian,
Charles O. Reynolds, Contestee.
Land in Controversy: N./2 N. E./4 Sec. 32, T. 7 N., R. 6 W.,
ontaining 8 acres.
No. 238.
Jarry F. Hitt, a Minor, by His Mother ‘and Natural Guardian,
Nellie B. Hill, Contestant,
v.
RANK REYNOLDS, a Minor, by His Father and Natural Guardian,
Charles O. Reynolds, Contestee.
Land in Controversy: N./2 8. E./4 See. 32, T. 7, R. 6 W., con-
ining 80 acres.
CLOSE IN CENTER
42 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
Exuisit F.
No, 239.
Lewis James, a Minor, by His Legal Guardian, Dave Hill,
ee
Canpan RrEYNOoLps, a Minor, by THis Father and Natural Guardian,
Charles O. Reynolds, Contestee.
Land in Controversy: N./2 S. W./4 Sec. 33, T. 7 N., R. 6 W,
containing 80 acres.
No. 240.
3 _ Lewis James, by His Legal en Dave Hill, Contestant,
Eruer A. ReyNoips, a Minor, by _ Father and Natural Guardian,
Charles 0. Reynolds, Contestee.
Land in Controversy: N./2 N. E./4 N. W./4 and W./2. N. W./4
Sec. 33, T. 7 N., R. 6 W., containing 100 acres.
67 On Review.
This is a contest instituted on behalf of J. B. Hill, Harry F. Hil
and Lewis James, minor Choctaws, whose degree of Indian blood
respectively, is 1/32, 1,/32 and 1/4, against Frank, Willie, Seldan
and Ethel Reynolds, minor Chickasaws, whose degree of Indian
blood is 1/4 each, to determine the right to select in allotment five
tracts in the Chickasaw Nation, described above, embracing 420 acres
of land.
A decision was rendered by the First Assistant Secretary of th
Interior February 6, 1907, in favor of the members of the Hil
family. On review, this decision was recalled and vacated and prio
decisions of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Commis
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes were reversed by a decision ren
dered by the Acting Secretary August 21, 1907. While the matte
was under review, tribal patents were inadvertently issued convey
ing the land in question in the Hill children. Subsequently, a sui
was instituted in the proper United States Court to have these in
struments set aside and, after various proceedings, which need no
be detailed, a consent decree was entered cancelling the patents, with
the understanding by all concerned that the case should again b
heard and decided upon its merits by the Department. The cas
was resubmitted at length by both seatiia, orally and by brief, an
is not ready for final decision.
The contestants claims these lands by reason of priority of pos
session and ownership of improvements. Contrary to this, the cop
testees rely on priority of application, in addition thereto and claim
ecennsitieninniniaoaee a
COPY BOU!
a lean ceeennce
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 43
a better title to the improvements and a greater right to the posses-
gon of the land than their opponents.
The lands in controversy lie between the forks of East
68 Bitter and West Bitter creeks, and include the major por-
tions of the east half of section 32 and the contiguous lands
comprising part of the west half of Section 33, all in township 7
north, range 6 west of the Indian Meridian. West Bitter Creek
s in a southerly direction near the western limits of these
tracts, East Bitter Creek flowing also to the south, does not touch
any of them being approximately one half mile to the east. The
Chickasaw-Purcell road runs in a general easterly and westerly di-
rection, near or through the northern portion of the land.
These lands were once a part of a much larger tract known as
the C. L. Campbell farm which embraces 12,000 to 15,000 acres in
the Chickasaw Nation and extended over a considerable portion of
the adjacent and near-by sections. Cambell, a white man, having
married a woman of part Indian blood, occupied or claimed these
lands for a number of years prior to his death which occurred in
1896. He used the major portion of the land for grazing but re-
duced some 1200 or 1500 acres to cultivation. The Campbell home
place and the buildings were in the N. E./4 of said section 33,
considerably east of the main body of the land in controversy.
North of the home place lay the extensive tract which is referred
to in the records as the “North Pasture.”
At the original hearing (April 27, 1904) the contestants offered
in evidence in writing purporting to be a copy of the will of C. L.
Campbell, and a copy of the minutes of the Chickasaw (Indian)
court confirming the appointment of W. L. Sawyer, as administra-
tor, and J. H. Tuttle, as guardian, certified to be true copies thereof
by the Probate Clerk of Pontotoc County, Chickasaw Nation, under
date of April 25, 1904; the Contestees excepted because of
69 (1) failure to show that the original of the will could not be
furnished, and (2) lack of proper authentication or certifica-
tion. This exception will be considered in a subsequent connection.
By this will Campbell, disposed of his personal property and cer-
tain lands claimed by them to his wife and five minor children.
Share and share alike. Other property, “of whatsoever kind” (ex-
cept household furniture and wearing apparel) “not herei-before
mentioned,” he bequeathed to his wife and children (including
two adult daughters) in equal shares, Apparently the adults were
to receive their shares, wholly or in part, within one year after the
testator’s death, and the minors’ interests were to be held in trust
by the guardian.
After the death of Campbell his widow and minor children, con-
tinned to occupy the old Campbell home. In 1899 she again mar-
ried a white man, a Doctor Minter, with whom she continued to re-
side at the same place.
Upon allotment of tribal lands under the agreement of 1902, Mrs.
Minter selected the lands including the Campbell home as her allot-
ment. Nearby lands, constituting a part of the Campbell holdings,
rere selected as the allotments of Dr. Minter and a daughter. Other
[ID CLOSE IN CENTER
oe
44 HARRY F. HILL, ETC,, ET AL. VS.
Campbell lands were allotted to certain of her children, while stil]
other portions were disposed of and the proceeds used to provide al
lotments elsewhere for other members of the family.
January 21, 1899, Mrs. Campbell, prior to her marriage to Dr,
Minter, executed a quit-claim deed or bill of sale conveying to one
J. W. Blassingame her right, title and interest in and to the posses
sion of two tracts of land (formerly held or claimed by her deceased
husband), together with the improvements thereon. This transac.
tion marks the origin of the claims of the Reynolds children,
70 Blassingame paid $250 for the first of these tracts which is
described in the bill of sale as the “Campbell North Horse
Pasture,” which is north of the land in controversy and not a part
of it, and also north of the Chickasha-Purcell road. The second
tract, which does embrace the lands involved in these contracts,
with additional lands bordering it on the east, list south of said road
and nearly east of West Bitter Creek, and is described in the instru.
ment of conveyance as follows:
One section to be taken out of the northwest corner of her (Mn.
Campbell’s) tract of land. Beginning on the east bank of West
Bitter Creek, about one hundred years south of the Chickasha and
Purcell road, thence south one mile, thence east one mile, thence
north one mile, thence west one mile to the place of beginning.
The consideration for the land so described was to be certain cat
tle, but the sum of $270 was finally paid in lieu thereof.
Blassingame entered into possession of these tracts in February
or March, 1899, and held the same until December 10, 1902, dur.
ing which time he made valuable improvements thereon. On the
date last named he executed a bill of sale conveying his interest in
the land obtained from Mrs. Campbell, together with the improve.
ments, to one John W. Brimmage, for a consideration of $1500,
Brimmage assigned to C. A. Reynolds who desired the land for his
children, the contestees herein. He paid Blassingame $500 in
money and gave his note for $1000 which was paid later in full.
It is.impossible to make a finding as to whether C. L. Campbell
complied with the requirements of the intermarried laws of
71 the Chickasaw Nation necessary to confer citizenship.
Were he now an applicant for enrollment the case would
necessarily be remanded for completion of the record.
September 7th, 1897, a decision was rendered by the United
States Court for the Central District of Indian Territory admitting
James W. Blassingame and his four children to enrollment as citi-
zens by blood, and his wife as a citizen by intermarriage of the
Chickasaw Nation. This decree was rendered under the act of June
10, 1896 (29 Stat. 321) which declared that the judgments of the
United States Courts in such cases should be final. This decision
remained undisturbed until after Blassingame transferred to Brim-
mage. The Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court rendered a decree
December 17, 1902, in the test case of J. T. Riddle et al. setting
aside and vacating the decision of the United States Courts in all
such cases, Thereupon Blassingame transferred his case to the
Citizenship Court for trial de novo with the result that on Februs
eee a
COPY BOUND
| ena
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 48
29, 1904, he was denied enrollinent by said court. Brimmage and
olds are both intermarried whites, with Indian children.
he next conveyance to be considered is the basis upon which
rests the claim of the contestants. November 18, 1902, J. H. Tuttle
(as guardian of John and Rex Campbell, minors) Mrs. Minter,
(formerly Mrs. Campbell) and her sons, M. T. A. A. and Holmes
Campbell, executed a bill of sale purporting to convey to Dave Hill,
father of the contestants, substantially the same premises as those
described in the bill of sale from Blassingame to Brimmage, i. e.,
the lands in controversy, with the improvements thereon, together
with other lands lying east and north,
December 24, 1902, H. E. (Holmes) Campbell, adult son of Mrs.
Campbell, and J. H. Tuttle joined in a bill of sale purport-
72 ing to convey to the said Dave Hill the north half of the
southwest quarter, and the north half of the southeast quarter
(two eighty-acre tracts) of said section 32, with the improvements
thereon. The latter tract only is a part of the land» ‘» controversy.
The consideration for the conveyance of November 5, 1902, was
to be $1600, which remained unpaid at the time of the hearing;
that for the conveyance of December 24, 1902, was to be $750, all
but $225 of which has been paid. Neither convevance was made
under authority of, or confirmed by, any court.
Litigation resulted from the claims based upon the conveyances
made by members of the Campbell family. Tuttle stated that he
did not himself give notice to Blassingame to quit possession but
wrote to his foreman, Geo. Ladd, “To tell him that he could not
have the land.” Ladd testified that in the spring of the year that
Blassingame entered into possession he told Blassingame that Mr.
Tuttle wanted him to get off the land.
Mr. R. Bond, attorney for contestants, testified that Mr. Tuttle
and Doctor Minter came to the office of ITolding and Bond (his
firm) and requested them to bring suit; that they notified Blass-
ingame and his son to quit possession; that Dr. Minter was to fur-
nish the funds for the suit; but that the funds were not furnished
and the suit was never instituted. Witness further states that this
occurred, “to the best of my recollection”, in 1899 of 1900. — .
J. W. Blassingame, Mrs. Campbell’s first grantee, testified that
he never received any notice from Ladd to quit possession: that
three years after he acquired the place he received a written
73 notice from Holding and Bond claiming the land; that no
suit was instituted by them.
November 25, 1902, suit in ejectment was filed by Hill against
Blassingame. This occurred one week after the bill of sale to Hill
was executed by Tuttle and members of the Campbell family.
Answer was made by Blassingame and by Reynolds on behalf of
his children. Apparently nothing was done from 1902 until some-
time after the inadvertent issue of patents to the Hill family to-
wards prosecution of this suit. Thereafter plaintiffs obtained a
judgment on the ground that they were the owners of the title to
the land. Later the patents were cancelled, as before noted.
Pertinent to the facts in this case — certain laws and treaty pro-
= « we
CLOSE IN CENTER
a
46 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
visions which have been carefully considered but will not, by re
son of the space required, be set forth in full. They are: Th
Chickasaw Tribal Acts of October 7, 12, 12 and 19, 1876 (Chick
saw Law Book 1899 pp. 57, 81, 73, 144) relating, respectively to th
making of wills, the descent of property, the duties and powers o
guardians and the disposition of the estates of deceased Chickasaws
the act of Congress of May 2, 1890 (26 Btat., 83, 94, 95) puttin
Mansfield’s Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas, 1884. in force ij
Indian Territory generally, except as to Indian citizens; the act o
June 7, 1897 (30 Stat. 85) making said statutes applicable to al
persons therein, irrespective of race; section 28 of the act of Jun
28, 1898, (30 Stat. 495, 504) abolishing all tribal courts in India
Territory and depriving the officers thereof of all authority in con
nection therewith; section 29 of said act of June 28, 1898, an
section 70 of the act of July 1, 1902, (32 Stat., 641) giving pa
ents precedence over guardians in the selection of allotments fq
minor Indians. Article 1 of the treaty of 1855 providing that eae
Choctaw and Chickasaw should have an equal interest in th
74 tribal lands, Article XV of the treaty of 1866 (14 Stat., 769
providing a tentative plan of allot-ing 160 acres to each cit
zen; the Chickasaw acts of September 24, 1887, October 11, 1892
and October 28, 1889 (Law Book 1899, pp. 199, 200, 292, 243
relating respectively to what constituted a valid claim to Chickasa
lands and the abandonment thereof, defining what should be.
lawful fence and providing a penalty for fencing land for pasturage
and sections 17 and 18 of said act of June 28th, 1898, and section
19 and 20 of the act of July 1, 1902, supra relating to excessiy
holdings and providing penalties therefor.
Much of the Campbeli farm was inclosed for pasturage purpose
The cultivated portion did not exceed 1200 or 1500 acres. Th
evidence fails to show that any improvements were added to the lan
either by Mrs. Campbell or by Tuttle, or by any of the Campbe
children aiter the death of C. L. Campbell. The fields constitutin
the home place, and probably (prior to 1899) some of the land
now in controversy, were cultivated by her workmen or by tenant
Her testimony is in conflict with that of Tuttle as to who receive
the rents from the land last mentioned. She claims that she let ot
the lands and received the rents. He claimed that he still @
pects to get the rents from her. It may be held, however, wit
reasonable certainty that, during the period Blassingame was i
possession, i. e., from January 1899 to December 1902, there was 1
serious effort to dispossess him.
Tuttle claims that when the minors became of age he assigne
to each his share of the land comprising his father’s estate and thi
the widow was given independent control of various tract
75 The most that can be inferred from his testimony is th
lands lying somewhere north and east of West Bitter Cree
were placed at the disposal of Mrs. Campbell and that other land
south of that creek were held by him for the minor Campbells, bu
Mrs. Minter testified positively that no assignment was made to tb
heirs of the lands due each, It appears no act of Tuttle’s, by
cee ES = ne ae
COPY BOUN
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 47
renting the land or disposing of the interest of the heirs therein,
yas ordered or confirmed by any court, either of the Chickasaw
Nation or the United States, and every indication points to the con-
dusion that during the time he was supposed to act as guardian
matters were allowed to drift merely, to take such course as best
they might, without any special control by him, pending the allot-
ment of the land.
The witnesses gave their testimony more than five years after
Mrs. Campbell conveyed to Blassingame, and, as a result, their
datements are in a degree indefinite and conflicting, but it appears
that practically all of the land in controversy was at that time (Jan-
vary 21, 1899) uncultivated, used mainly, if at all, for grazing
purposes. ‘I'wo fields of 12 or 15 acres each, and probably one of
35 acres had been reduced to a state of cultivation, but seemingly
not separately fenced.. A fourth field of 60 to 75 acres was men-
tioned as being located within a pasture fenced to itself with a four-
wire fence, “broke up” but not under cultivation. None of these
fields, particularly the last, can be definitely placed with respect
to the lands embraced in any one of these contests. It further
rs that there was an extreme outside fence around said pasture
mich probably conformed substantially to the square mile de-
scribed in Mrs. Campbell’s bill of sale to Blassingame; also
76 that there was another fence running along a creek, not
named. Neither the condition or the exact location of these
fences can be fixed by the evidence, but it may be inferred that the
“extreme outside fence” passed diagonally through the western edge
and perhaps skirted the northern border of the lands which are
the tracts now covered by the several contests, without conforming
to the government survey, passing finally beyond and to the east of
all or nearly all of said lands. The fields referred to above were
detached tracts forming no part of a continuous scheme of improve-
ment.
~ Tuttle’s exercise of dominion or control of the lands in controversy
seems to have been limited, after Blassingame entered into possession
to these fields, and even as to them it does not appear that he did
more than to request his attorneys to have the rents sued for in the
suit which was contemplated in 1899 but never instituted.
During the period these lands were held by Blassingame valuable
improvements were made upon them consisting of building, fences,
wells and cultivation, including the drainage of a considerable acre-
age. Blassinghame estimated the value of these improvements to be
$2500.00. As the contestants, in their contest affidavits, swear to the
existence of much improvements well distributed over the several
tracts and as Hill admitted that the land was practically all in culti-
vation when Tuttle and Mrs. Minter conveyed to him in 1902, this
phase of the matter need not be discussed in detail.
Viewing this controversy first from the standpoint of the several
conveyances referred to above, what conclusion follows as to the right
of the claimants by reason thereof? The bill of sale of January 21,
1899, to Blassingame, was executed by Mrs. Campbell only.
Assuming that her interest in the tracts conveyed was derived
from C. L. Campbell, either by will or by inheritance, and
) CLOSE IN CENTER
a
HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
that said lands properly and lawfully constituted a part of his de
scendible estate, it would have been necessary to a complete convey-
ance of the right of possession for the other members of the Campbell
family to join with her in the bill of sale unless there was an assign.
ment of these particular lands to her as her part of the estate. But
she testified there was no assignment of individual interests.
Even if it should be held that there where a family of Indian
citizens in occupation of tribal lands is deprived by death of the
father, particularly if he has a noneitizen white man, the right of
possession passes to the surviving mother, with sole power of dispos-
tion, without recognition of any separate right in the children, stil]
there would be grave doubt as to whether Mrs. Campbell had such
an interest in this land in 1899 more than two years after husband's
death, as would entitle her to convey. This because of lack of
affirmative showing of compliance, either by herself or her husband,
with the tribal laws referred to above relating to the making of law.
ful claims on the public domain, the abandonment thereof, the con
struction and maintenance of fences, and the fencing of lands for
pasturage purposes only.
Mrs. Campbell (as S. L. Minter) was also one of the grantors whofl
joined in the conveyance of November 18, 1902, to Till, but her
act must be regarded as murgatory for she had already transferred
her right to the same land to Blassingame for a valuable considere
tion. J. H. Tutle, claiming to act for the minors, John and Rex
Campbell, also signed this bill of sale. But his act was not authorized
or confirmed by any court, Even under the Chiekasaw law, it would
have been necessary, had the Indian Probate Court been empowered
to act, to secure the consent of the court (see Section §
78 Chickasaw Act of October 12, 1876, supra) but the power of
the tribal judges to act was absolutely taken away by section
28 of the act of Congress of June 28, 1898, also referred to above,
which abolished the tribal courts and provided that no officer of such
courts should “thereafter have any authority whatever to do or per-
form any act theretofore authorized by law in connection with said
courts.”
If Tuttle had proceeded under the laws of Arkansas, as published
in Mansfield’s Digest, 1884, it would have been necessary for him to
comply with the various provisions therein relative to the duties o
guardians, but there is no evidence, or even a claim, that he did so.
It follows that no force can be attached to the bill of sale insofar as it
purports to convey the interests of said minors. Moreover, it is neces
sary to hold in this connection that the copy of the alleged will of
Campbell and of the minutes of the court showing the appointment o
Tuttle were not properly admitted in evidence for the reason that th
same were certified only by an officer of the Indian Courts. This cor
clusion is also based on section 28 of the act of June 28, 1898.
In absence of proper evidence of a will, and proceeding upon the
theory that C. L. Campbell died intestate, it must also be held (con-
trary to the terms of the alleged will) that the two adult daughters
of C. L. Campbell succeeded upon his death to a child’s share in his
whole estate. This being true it was necessary, to pass good title
assuming Campbell had a descendable interest in the extensive holq
— PTY HTT: sen ri28
PA ‘ aN A RIE IN EES Re Saar eet
COPY BOUND
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 49
ings claimed by him, for them also to join in the conveyance of No-
‘yember 18, 1902, but they failed to do so. This defect in parties
also applies to the Campbell bill af sale to Blassingame.
There remains to be considered the bill of sale of December 10,
1902, from J. H. Tuttle and Holmes Campbell to Dave Hill
79 + which affected the lands now in controversy as to the 80 acres
covered by contest No, 238. There is nothing in this instru-
ment to show that Tuttle acted in a representative capacity, and it
issubiect generally to the objections to the bill of sale of November
18. 1902. pointed out above.
The department is of opinion that the defects and irregulari-
ties in these bills of sale, executed by or on behalf of the .nembers
of the Campbell family, are so vital as to render extremely doubtful
any claim of right or title based thereon and that the controversy
must therefore be determined upon more substantial grounds if a
just and fair conclusion is to be reached.
Primarily the right of possession to Indian communal lands is
based upon actual occupation. And where an Indian has acquired
special interest in a portion of the lands of his tribe by such means
and has materially enhanced the value of such land by placing im-
provements on the same, or has invested his means in improvements
placed thereon by others, it is the unwavering policy of the Depart-
ment to recognize and protect his equitable interest rather than to
turn the land over to another having a mere nominal title thereto,
particularly where the person having the obvious right was first to
apply for the land.
Applying this standard to the present situation, what are the rights
of the Hill family in these lands? There are three small tracts
to which Hill asserts special claim of right, which may or may
not be identical with the fields referred to hereinbefore. Two of these
(said to con:ain from 12 to 15 acres each) are a part of the land in-
eluded in thie bill of sale of November 18, 1902, from Tuttle and
members of the Campbell family, neither of which is shown to have
been fenced as a spearate inclosure. One of them is located by Hill
in the southwest corner of the N. E. 4 of section 32 and is a
80 part of the 80 acres embraced in contest No. 236; the other,
according to his testimony is in the southwest corner of the
8. W. 4 of section 33, and constitutes a part of the 80 acres covered
by contest No. 239.
The possession which he claims to have held of these two tracts,
aggregating perhaps 25 acres, was of a constructive nature only,
acquired more than three years after the origin of Blassingame’s
claim thereto, and based upon the right supposed to aceure by reason
of the irregular and incomplete bill of sale last referred to above.
There can be no doubt of the correctness of this conclusion in view
of Hill’s admission that he had never put any improvements upon
the place obtained through that bill of sale, or received any rents
therefrom.
In view of the shadowy claims of the Hill children to these two
tracts, it cannot be held they have a paramount right to prevail in
contests Nos. 236 and 239, particularly as each is only about one-sixth
the area of the lands affected by said contests respectively.
) CLOSE IN CENTER
se
50 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS. )
The third tract to which Hill lays special claim, said to contaig
30 or 35 acres, is a part of the 80 acres in contest No. 238, being
portion of same lying west of West Ritter Creek. He bases his ciaim
to this, as well as to the whole of said 80 acres, upon the defectiyg
and imperfect bill of sale ex--uted December 10, 1902, by J.
Tuttle and Holmes Campbell. Hill testified that he caused a feng
to be placed around this 30 or 35 acre tract (the west part of th
eighty) January 1, 1903, which was nearly four years after Blasin.
game acquire the same and subsequent to the latter’s transfer
Brimmage. The character of this fence is now shown but, in view
the brief time within which jt was evidently constructed, it may
be questioned whether it had the element of strength and pe
manence necessary, according to numerous decisions of the |
ment, to constitute a bona fide improvement. Six m
81 after this fence was constructed contestees made applicati
for the lands in controversy. ;
In the opinion of the Department this small tract was an integm
part of the lands long occupied and improved by Blasingame, asi
compact farm unit, and that the right acquired by Reynolds by
investment could not be swept aside by Bill’s late and unwarran
assertion of right. |
There was a fourth tract, vaguely referred to in the testim
which, it is alleged, was fenced by itself and lay somewhat within
large pasture, but it is impossible to locate this field with respectt
any particular contest.
As these small tracts are outlying portions of the old Camp
place, it seems to be necessary in this connection to repeat the ruli
heretofore made by the Department that, while remote tracts even
not highly cultivated or thoroughly subdued, may be treated as
part of the farm to which they are appurtenant and, in a conte
case, be disposed of as an inseparable part of it, but that such ou
lying tracts cannot be held to be the nucleus of an independent allo
ment right. Blakeney v. Bishop, decided May 31, 1907, (M. 60
A. A. C, 278).
Much of the deeming force of the arguments for contestants |
dependent upon the impression conveyed that in some way the hei
of C. L. Campbell, particularly the minors, will be deprived of the
inheritance if the selection of the contestees are allowed to stan
But there is no real force in this suggestion. The Campbell fami
for many years enjoyed tle benefits of the vast acres of land claime
by C. L. Campbell, much of which was unquestionably held in d
regard and defiance of the laws of the Chickasha Nation and tl
United States? If Campbell was holding 15,000 acres at tl
82 time of his death, the average amount then held for ea
member of the family, including the two adult daughte1
was more than 1600 acres, i. e. approximately five times the avera
number of acres allotted to each citizen of the tribe. The cultivat
portion of his holding included about 1200 or 1500 acres. It follor
therefore that the part to which the family probably had a substa
tial claim was absorbed by their allotment selections which were pri
cipally made either directly therefrom or from other lands acqui
COPY BOUN
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 51
the proceeds obtained by sale of their interest in parts thereof.
ke lands now in controversy are not needed for the allotment of any
ne of the Campbell family.
“Nor should it be overlooked that, save the conveyance of Mrs.
mpbell in 1899 to Blasingame, it does not appear that any attempt
us made by Tuttle or members of the Campbell family to comply
that portion of the act of June 28, 1898 supra making excessive
ings illegal and providing a penalty therefor. From and after
gexpiration of the nine months allowed Indian citizens under that
to dispose of such holdings it was unlawful for them to hold
sore than their approximate share of the tribal lands. True the said
tof July, 1902, did give an extension of ninety days, beginning
September 25, 1902, to dispose of excessive holdings in order
protect owners of bona fide improvements, but it was certainly not
ed to permit Indian citizens to revive and reassert claims long
t, after others had entered into possession of and highly im-
ed the lands once claim- by them.
The fact that Blasingame was finally denied enrollment militates
no way against the justice of contestees’ claims. They invested
ir means in improvements made by him and succeeded to his pos-
sessions. Moreover, his right to occupy and improve Indian
lands was legally perfect as he and the members of his family
had the status of citizens of the Chickasaw Nation by a decree
the United States Court rendered under an act of congress which
ided such decrees should be final.
In reviewing this case the Department has been particularly im-
with the failure of the contestants to show affirmatively a
ior right to the land. The burden of establishing such right
upon them, as plaintiffs, but they have failed to make out a case
n their behalf. Independently of such failure, it is evident that
» disturb the allotment made to the Reynolds Children would not be
ight,
Therefore the Department adheres to its decision of August 21,
907, and the lands embraced in said contests numbered 236, 237,
38, 239 and 240 are hereby awarded respectively to Frank Rey-
lds, Willie Reynolds, Frank Reynolds, Seldan Reynolds and Ethel
Reynolds, the contestees therein. ;
(Signed ) FRANK PIERCE,
First Assistant Secretary.
) CLOSE IN CENTER
—————
HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. YS.
Department of the Interior.
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
Chickasaw Allotment Contests Nos, 236, 237, 238, 239, & 240.
Chickasaw Land Office.
April 27, 19
No, 236.
Neti B. Hitz, for Her Son, J. B. Hill, Minor, Contest
vs.
Cuas. O. Reynoxps, for Frank Reynolds, Minor, Contestee,
No. 237.
Nettie B. H111, for Her Son, J. B. Hill, Minor, Contestant,
vs.
Cuas. O. Reynoxps, for Willie Reynolds, Minor, Contestee. |
No. 238.
Neue B. Hit1, for Her ae J. B. Hill, Minor, Contestant,
Cuas. O. Reyno.ps, for Frank Reynolds, Contestee.
No. 239.
Dave Hutu, for His Ward, Louis James, Contestant,
vs.
Cuas. O. Reynoxps, for Sheldon Reynolds, Contestee.
Exuisit F,
No. 240.
Dave Hut, for His Ward, Louis James, Contestant,
vs.
Cuas. O. Reynoxps, for Ethel A. Reynolds, Contestee.
Land in Controversy. j
Contest No. 236—N./2, S. E./4 and §./2 of S. E./4, N. E./48
S. W./4 N. E./4, Sec. 32 T. 7 N., R. 6 W.
Contest No. 237—N./2, N. E./4, Sec. 32, T. 7 N. R. 6 W.
Contest No, 238—N./2, S. E./4, See. 32, T.7N. R. 6 W.
Contest No. 239—W. /2, S. W fs , Sec. 33 T. 7 N. R. 6 W.
Contest No. 240—N. /2, N. E./4, N. W./4 and W./2, N.
Sec. 33, T. 7 N. R. 6 W.
’
Appearances.
COPY BOUNI
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 53
Statement of Mr. Bond, of Counsel for Contestants.
The counsel for Contestants expect to show in this case that about
ty or twenty-five years ago C. L. Campbell, now deceased, segre-
id the land in controversy from the public domain and was in
session of same and controlled the same until his death, some-
me in 1896; that under his last will and testament he willed a
hild’s part of his land to his wife, Mrs. Sallie Campbell, and the
maining part of the land belonging to him was willed to his minor
vir, That J. H. Tuttle was appointed guardian of the minor
irs, of said C. L. Campbell, and under the will and his letters of
wardianship took possession and assumed control of the land in
mtroversy for the minor heirs of said C. L. Campbell. That in
pe year 1902, the said Tuttle, as guardian of the minor heirs of said
Fampbell, executed a quit-claim deed to the said premises in con-
roversy, to one Dave Hill. That the said Tuttle signed the said
ed as guardian for the minor heirs of said Campbell, and those
irs who had reached the age of majority since the death of said
lampbell also signed said quit-claim deed, and that Mrs. Sallie
inter, the wife of said C. L. Campbell, also signed said deed. We
ther state that Dave Hill, the grantee in this deed, purchased the
nd in controversy for the purpose of allot-ing his minor heirs upon
me, and claims title to said land by reason of said purchase and
hough the said quit-claim deed. We expect to show further that
he said testamentary guardian had absolute and full control of the
tire land of deceased C. L. Campbell, and he was to hold the same
in trust for the widow and heirs of said C. L, Campbell, who were
oshare equally in the same.
ui Statement of Mr. Bailey, of Counsel for Contestees.
The contestee, answering the allegations of the contestant herein,
my each and every allegation made therein except those herein-
ter admitted. The contestee admits that one C. L. Campbell,
ow deceased, at some time, which said date is unknown to con-
tee was in possession of the land herein sued for; and that the
id Campbell did at some time during the year 1896 die, leaving
will in which the home and certain other parts of his estate and
gregated lands were willed to his widow, Mrs. S. L. Campbell,
ho is now Mrs. S. L. Minter. Contestee further states that during
he year 1899 the said Mrs. S. L. Campbell, now Mrs. Minter, sold
» one J. A. Blasingame the lands herein sued for, for a valuable
onsideration, and that immediately thereafter the said J. W. Blass-
ngame, who was a citizen of the Chickasaw or Choctaw Nation, went
into the possession and control of said land, and remained in the
xclusive, full and complete control of said land until during the
ter part of the year 1902, or early part of 1903, when he sold
he said land to one Brimmage, a citizen of the Chickasaw or Choe-
aw Nation by birth; and that afterwards the said Brimmage trans-
eee
) CLOSE IN CENTER
54 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
ferred for a valuable consideration all his rights, title and interes
in and to the said lands to the Contestees herein; and that Cha
O. Reynolds purchased this land as his legal and lawful allotment
for himself and minor children, whose names are contained j
the complaints herein filed. Contestee further states that. at th
time of the purchase of the land herein sued for by the said J. ¥
Blassingame from the said Mrs. S. L. Campbell now Mrs. 8. ]
Minter, the said lands were in the full and complete control of th
said Mrs. Minter by further reason of her agreements with on
Tuttle, who acted as guardian of the minor children of said C. ]
Campbell, deceased. Contestee further states that the said Mr
Campbell executed to the said Blassingame a quit-claim dee
87 and bill of sale for the said lands, and that at the time
the execution of said deed the lands herein sued for we
unimproved other than a small amount of broken land on the tra
conveyed by said Mrs. Campbell. Contestees further deny th
one Dave Hill, who claims to have purchased the lands herein su
for. ever purchased the said lands, or has ever exercised any co
trol or possession over the said lands, Contestees further state th
if the said Mrs. S. L. Minter and one Tuttle and the heirs of 1
said C. L. Campbell did execute to one Hill a quit-claim deed f
the lands herein sued for the said heirs were without any authori
of right or control over the said lands; that they and each of the
were in the full control of their legal and lawful allotments, a
considerable excess holders. That the said Tuttle could not execu
any valid deed as guardian of these childern to the lands her
sued for, and that the said Mrs. Campbell had already surrender
all her rights, title and interest for a valuable consideration to ¢
said J. W. Blassingame, under whom Contestees claim the la
herein sued for. Contestees further show that at the death of t
said C. L. Campbell, he was holding large bodies of land, amout
ing in the aggregate to perhaps 8,000 or 10,000 acres, and that ea
and all of his heirs have taken their allotments: from land in t
possession of said C. L. Campbell at the time of his death.
88 Testimony.
Dave Ht, a witness for the Contestants herein, having been fi
duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Bond:
State your name to the Commission?
T sign my name Dave Hill.
Your age?
Thirty-seven.
Your post office address?
Chickasha, Chickasaw Nation.
And your citizenship?
mormed Chootam citi
PO>ororeo
ce “ee a
COPY BOUN
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 55
-Q This is an action, Mr. Hill, brought by you for your ward
louis, James, and your minor sons, J. B. Hill and Harry Hill. Are
acquainted with the land in controversy?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How old is your son J. B. Hill?
A. He will be seven years old in September.
Q. How old is your son Harry Hill?
A. He is five years old.
-Q How old is your ward Louis James?
A. He is ten or eleven, I couldn’t say positively just as to the age.
Q. Mr. Hill, how did you acquire title to these premises in con-
troversy ?
A. I bought it from Jim Tuttle.
Q. Did he execute a quit claim deed?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Have you the deed in your possession?
A. Yes sir.
89 By Mr. Bond: We desire to have this deed (offering deed )
made a part of the record and marked “Exhibit A.”
Q. This deed is also signed by M. T. Campbell, Mr. Hill? Is he
ason of C. L. Campbell, deceased?
A. Yes sir.
| Introduction of deed objected to by counsel for Contestees for the
reason that no interest is shown in any of the parties making same.
Q. Do you know whether or not M. T. Campbell has reached the
age of majority?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How old is he?
A. I don’t know—26 or 27 years old.
Q. This deed is also signed by Holmes Campbell. Is he a son of
C. L. Campbell, deceased?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Is he of age?
A. Yes sir.
Q. This deed is also signed by S. L. Minter. Is she the widow of
C. L. Campbell, deceased?
A. Yes sir.
Q. This deed is also signed by L. A. Campbell, do you know
whether or not his disability has been removed?
. I don’t understand the question.
Who is L. A. Campbell?
Son of Mrs, Campbell; Mrs. Minter now.
Son of C. L. Campbell deceased?
Yes sir.
Do you know whether he is a married or single man?
. He is married.
Q. Does the land described in this quit-claim deed in-
90 clude the lands in controversy in this action?
= _A. It includes all of it but 80 acres.
>POPOPO>
a anesiiacieenetee a
CLOSE IN CENTER
cm
56 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
Q. From whom did you purchase this 80 acres that this dea
does not include? i
A. I purchased it from Holmes Campbell and Tuttle.
Objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant.
Q. Have you the deed to that land?
A. Yes sir. (Witness produces deed.)
Mr. Bond: We ask that this deed be made a part of the record
and marked “Exhibit B”’.
Q. I will ask you to look at this deed, Mr. Hill, and describe the
eighty acres conveyed by this deed that is also in controversy in this
action.
A. The 80 acres in controversy on this piece of land, there is, |
suppose 30 or 35 acres of it on the west side of West Bitter, and 3
or 45 on the east side of West Bitter. This land on the west side has
never been in the possession of no one else but the Campbell estate
and _— Hill. It is the north half of the southeast quarter of Se
tion 32.
Q. Then, if IT understand you correctly, West Bitter Creek runs
through the north half of the southeast quarter of Section 32?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Practically dividing that 80 acres into two equal parts?
A. There is a little more on the east side than on the west side.
The east side the Campbell estate and Hill has had possession of
ever since it has been put in cultivation. The west side I have had
— and rented and tended since the first day of January, 1903,
enced.
Q. I will ask vou, Mr. Hill. about how many acres are there in
contest between the minor heirs of yourself and those of Reynolds,
without the Morean piece?
A. A little over 400 acres.
91 Q. How much of this land are you now in possession of?
A. T am in possession of something like 125 or 130 acres—
something like 110 acres.
Q. Who is in possession of the remaining part of it?
A. Mr. Reynolds I guess. Twelve or thirteen acres right here in
the southwest corner of the northeast quarter of Section 32 is in my
possession ; then here is a piece, now, down in this corner, 12 or 15
acres, in the southwest corner of the southwest quarter of section 33
that has been in my possession ever since the 18th day of November
1902.
Q. Did you make any attempt Mr. Hill, after you purchased this
land to secure possession of the same.
A. Yes sir.
Q. What did vou do?
A. T went and told Mr. Blassingame that T had bought the land
from the Campbell estate and that I wanted him to get off of it
and give me possession.
Q. Was he in possession of it at that time?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What did he state?
POAT RAN PR LOES IAT OT ee e
ao ses oS
COPY BOUNI
FRANK, REYNOLDS, ETC. 57
A. He said he wouldn’t do it. I told him we would bring suit for
,
Objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. Bailey:
Q. Mr. Hill, how long have you lived near these lands that are
in litigation here?
A. I have lived somewhere near them for something like three
0. How long have you been acquainted with the Campbell farm?
A. T have been acquainted with it three years and over.
92 Q. Do you know Holmes Campbell?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How old is he?
A. I judge something like 24 years old.
Q. Is he a married man?
A. No sir.
Q. Do you know Mont Campbell?
A. Yessir...
Q. How old is he?
A. Something like 26 or 27.
Os Mrs. S. L. Minter is the widow of C. L. Campbell, deceased, is
e?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Do you know L. A. Campbell?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How old is he?
A. T could not tell you, only he is a married man.
Q. Are there any other Campbell children?
A. Two more.
Q. What are their names?
A. John and Rex.
Q. How old are they?
A. I judge one of them is eighteen and the other probably is six-
teen. ;
Q. Do you know where Mont and Holmes and L. A. Campbell
and Rex and John Campbell lived at this time?
A. Bud Campbell lived on the south end of the old Campbell
place.
Q. Which one do you call Bud?
A. 1, A. Campbell.
Q. Where does Mont Campbell live?
A. Four miles east of Chickasha.
93 Q. Where does Holmes Campbell live?
A. T couldn’t tell you where his home is.
Q. On the old Campbell place?
A. I couldn’t tell you whether it is on the old Campbell place;
he stays at Mont’s part of the time and at the old lady’s part of the
me.
a ..
TO now where he
shete ODD)
ID CLOSE IN CENTER
ee
58 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
A. Yes sir.
Q. Where?
A. They claim their home at the old lady Minter’s on the old
Campbell place.
Q. Do you know how much land C. L. Campbell was holding
there at the time of his death?
A. No sir, I do not.
Q. Do you know how much the Campbell estate is holding there
at this time?
A. No sir, I do not.
Q. Have you no idea?
A. Not much of an idea.
—. How much in your best judgment?
A. I don’t suppose they are holding anything to exceed their allot-
ments.
Q. You don’t know how much they are holding?
A. No sir, I don’t know how much they are holding.
Q. When you went up there in that section three years ago, who
- Oat time was in control of the lands that are now in litigation
ere?
. Blassingame.
Mr. J. W. Blassingame?
. Yes sir, I think he was.
Was he living on this land at that time?
. No sir.
94 Q. His tenants were there?
A. Yes sir.
Who was in possession of that place the next year?
. Blassingame, I suppose.
Who was in possession the next vear?
T suppose Blassingame was there in possession of it; I know
Charlev Reynolds was in possession the next year.
Q. When did you first set up your claim to any part of that land?
A. On the 18th day of November, 1902.
Q. That is when you claim to have purchased it from Mr. Tuttle
and the members of the Campbell family?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Who was in possession of the land at that time?
A. T suppose J. W. Blassingame was in possession of it.
Q. You have not been in possession of that land since that time
_ have you?
A. Part of it, I am. ‘
Q. What part of it are you in possession of?
A. I am in possession of the north half of the southeast quarter
of section 32. I am in possession of 12 or 15 acres of the northwest
quarter of Section 33, I am in possession of 12 or 15 acres of the
northeast quarter of section 32, in the southwest corner.
Q. That little strip there is just the land that is west of the creek?
Are you in possession of all that is below the creek there?
A. Yes sir; about 12 or 15 acres in each piece.
Q. That is all you are in possession of?
A. No sir; 80 acres more.
O>o>
>OPO
COPY BOUN
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC.
Q. When did you take possession of that?
A. I took possession on the 1st day of January 1903.
Q. How did you get possession?
95 a9 It was turned over to me by Holmes and Mont Camp-
11.
Q. Is it not a fact that you went down there and by force, or over
the protest of the tenants in possession of the place at that time, con-
structed a fence there?
. No sir.
. You did construct a fence across there, did you not?
No sir.
Who did?
I think it was Holmes Campbell.
It was put there at your request was it not?
T don’t know as it was.
Were you not there with them at that time?
No sir.
You didn’t go about there?
I was over there the day they went up there.
Did you not know that the fence was being put there?
. Yes sir.
_ Is it not a fact that your possession there was contested during
the entire time the crop on that 80 acres was being grown?
A. I don’t think it was.
Q. Were you not aware that the land belonged to Mr. Reynolds
and that he would claim the rent on that 80 acres?
A. No sir. (Continuing answer:) Mr. Reynolds said the day he
come out there that he wouldn’t claim that piece of ground inside
of that fence, the first day he was out there.
Q. You did not know the fence was going to be put there? .
A. Yes sir.
Q. And you requested it to be put there?
A. I guess you might just as well say I did.
Q. That is all the land. you are in possession of on that place.
A. Yes sir.
96 Be — never was in possession of any other land on that
ace
A. No sir, except what I have described.
Q. Have you attempted to move the cropt and collect the rents;
they never have paid you any rents?
§ No sir; they piled up the rents for me and Mr. Reynolds
hauled them off.
Q. Then you are not in possession of 135 acres on that place,
are you?
A. Of 135 acres? ;
Q. You are not in possession of the 135 acres that Mr. Reynolds
is contesting for?
A. I am in possession of about 110 acres.
Q. That includes the 80 acres that Holmes and Mont Campbell
had fenced off?
A. That was only part of it fenced off.
>
OPOPOPOPOPOPe
ND CLOSE IN CENTER
ec
60 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. VS.
Q. Who had been in possession of the 80 acres previously?
A. Blassingame had been in possession of 35 or 40 acres and the
Campbell estate the balance of it.
Q. Was the land in cultivation?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Who was in possession of it the year before it was fenced?
A. The Campbell estate was in possession of it—35 or 40 acres,
and Blassingame 35 or 40.
Q. How much did you pay for that land?
A. Seven hundred and fifty dollars, that is for the full quarter
section ; there are eighty acres there that are not in this contest.
Q. You paid seven hundred and fifty dollars for the entire quar-
ter section did you?
A. For the entire quarter section.
Q. What did you pay Mont Campbell?
97 A. I didn’t pay Mont Campbell anything.
Q. How much did you pay for the land that you pur-
chased from Tuttle and the Campbell heirs?
A. Sixteen hundred dollars.
Q. How much land was there in cultivation there at that time?
A. It was pretty much all in cultivation—something like 60
acres,
Q. What improvements were there on that land at that time?
A. There were a couple of renters’ houses, two granaries, crib or
something like that—barn.
Q. The place was pretty well improved was it not?
A. Tolerably, yes.
Q. Practically the entire tract of land was in cultivation?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Have you ever put any improvements on that place?
A. T have not.
Q. Have you ever received any rents off of that place?
A. I have not.
Q. Have you ever exercised any control over that place?
A. No sir; I have tried to collect the rents and the rents were
piled up there for me.
Redirect.
By Mr. Bond:
Q. Who piled the rents up for you, Mr. Hill?
A. Pat Ellis.
Q. What became of these rents?
A. Mr. Reynolds had them hauled off. I had contracts with all
those men before Mr. Reynolds ever came in possession.
Q. Did you have rental contracts with all the tenants on that
place?
A. Yes sir.
Contestee- objects unless contracts are produced.
98 Q. You say that Mr. Reynolds filed on a portion of your
land and that neither Blassingame nor Brimmage nor Rey-
FRANK REYNOLDS, ETC. 61
nolds nor anyone else had been in possession of — except the Camp-
bell estate and yourself?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you not receive rents off that land?
A. Yes sir. I received all the rents off this 80 acres that he has
filed on and all the rents off these two blocks of 12 or 15 acres each;
there never was any contest against it.
+ Q. Mr. Hill, I believe you stated that you had possession of this
place and that you filed suit against Blassingame?
A. Yes sir.
Q. In what court did you file it?
A. In the United States Court.
Q. Where?
A. At Chickasha.
Recross.
By Mr. Bailey:
Q. When did you file that suit?
A. I think that suit was filed on or about the 25th day of Novem-
ber, 1902; I think that was the date.
Q. You filed suit for ejectment?
A. Yes sir.
Q. You bought this property, you say, on the 18th day of No-
vember?
A. Yes sir.
Q. When did you give him notice to move?
A. Loe him notice to move, I think somewhere about the 20th
or 25th.
Q. About the time you filed the suit?
A. Yes sir, on the same day.
99 Q. Was this sixteen hundred dollars ever paid?
A. Paid by note.
Has it not been paid yet?
No sir.
To whom is that note payable?
. Payable to J. H. Tuttle.
Has this seven hundred and fifty dollars ever been paid?
. All the seven hundred and fifty dollars has been paid, but
two hundred and twenty-five dollars.
Q. How was that paid?
A. It was paid in checks, money and one horse put in on it.
Q. It was paid along in installments—piecemeal?
A. Yes sir.
Q. You don’t know Mr. Hill whether any court has ever approved
the deed you have here from Mr. Tuttle, do you?
A. No, I do not.
>POPOPO
62 HARRY F. HILL, ETC., ET AL. V8.
os James H. Tuttle,
i 5
James H. Turrze, a witness for the Contestants herein, having
been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Bond:
Mr. Tuttle, will you state your name to the Commission?
James H. Tuttle.
Your age?
. Forty-two.
Your pose office address?
Minco.
Are you a citizen of either the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation?
. Chickasaw. |
. By inter-marriage?
A. Yes sir.
100 Q. Is your wife a daughter of C. L. Campbell deceased? |
A. My second wife was, yes sir.
Q. Did C. L. Campbell execute a will and testament before he
ied?
OProrerere
Objected to by contestee-.
Q. Were you ever appointed guardian of the minor heirs of
C. L. Campbell?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Are you the guardian of
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.