# Appendix — Alonzo v. United States (No. 682)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0030%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1957

## Text

A
APPENDIX A
Statutes Invoived in the Current Controversy

The Rule of Comity, 28 U.S.C. § 2283

A court of the United States may not grant an injune-
tion to stay proceedings in a State court except as ex-
pressly authorized by Act cf Congress, or where necessary
in ald of its jurisdiction, or to protect or cffectuate its
judgements. |

tn

Duty to Furnish Attorney 25 U.S.C. § 175

In all States and Territories where there are reserva-
tions or alletted Indians the United States district attorney
shall represent them in all suits at law and in equity.

In re Restriction on Lands of Pueblos—
Section 17 of Pueblo Lands Act of 1924,
25 U.S.C. § 331, Historical Note

No right, title, or interest in or to the Tands of the
Pueblo Indians of New Mexico to which their title has ft
been extinguished as hereinbefore determined shall here-
after be acquired or initiated by virtue of the laws of the
State of New Mexico, or in any other-manner except as
may hereafter be provided by Congress, and no sale, grant,
lease of any character, or other conveyance of lands, or
any title or claim thereto, made by any pueblo as a com-
munity, or any Pueblo Indian living in a community of
Pueblo Indians, in the State of New Mexico, shall be of
any validity in law or in equity unless the same be first
approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

The New Mexico Enabling Act, Section 2(2),
36 Stat. 557, 558-559, Identical With Article
XXI, Section 2, New Mexico Constitution

That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree
and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to
unappropriated and ungranted public lands lying with the

).

boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said
boundaries owned or held by any Indfan or Indian tribes
the right or title to which shall have been acquired through
or from the United States or any prior sovereignty, and
that until the title of such Indian or Indian tribes shal!
have been extinguished the same shall be and remain sub-
ject to the disposition and under the absolute jurisdiction
and control of the Congress of the United States; . .-.

The Pueblo a Juristic Person,
N. M. Stat. 1953, Sec. §1-17-1
a

The inhabitants within the state of New Mexico, known
by the name of the Pueblo Indians, and living in towns
or villages built on lands granted to such Indians by the
Jaws of Spain and Mexico, and conceding to such inhabit-
ants certain lands and privileges, to be used for the com-
mon benefit, are severally hereby created and constituted
bodies politic and corporate, and shall be known in the
law by the name of the Pueblo de .......... , (naming it),
and by that name they and their suecessors shall have
perpetual succession, sue and be sued, plead and be im-
pleaded, bring and defend in any court of law or equity,
all such actions, pleas and matters whatsoever, proper to
recover, protect, reclaim, demand or assert the right of
such inhabitants, or any individual thereof, to any lands,
tenements or hereditaments, possessed, occupied or claimed
contrary to law, by any person whatsoever, and to bring
and defend all such actions, and to resist any eneroach-
ment, claim or trespass made -upon such lands, tenements
or hereditaments, belonging to said inhabitants, or to any
individual.

3a
APPENDIX B

Opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Dated September 25, 1957

Before Bratton, Chief Judge, and Puivups and Breiren-
stein, Circuit Judges.

Putups, Cireuit Judge.

On January 25, 1957, Lupe Alonzo, Jim Alonzo, Joe
Alonzo, Valentino Alonzo and James Garcia commenced
an action in the District Court of the Second Judicial
District in and for the County of Valencia, State of New
Mexico, against John Herndon, Anaconda Copper Min-
ing Company, a corporation, the Pueblo of Laguna’ and
Clemente Lente, as governor of the Pueblo and in his
individual capacity, and against Willie Creager, Joe Ross,
Joe Marmon and Lee Marmon, as members of the board
of the Pueblo and in their individual capacities, seeking
a writ of ejectment with respect to certain lands described
in their complaint against the above-named defendants
and damages for minerals alleged to have been wrong-
fully extracted from said lands by the above-named de-
fendants. The state court action was numbered 8016 on
the docket of the state court. Thereafter, on February
21, 1957, the United States, in its own behalf and in be-
half of the Pueblo, commenced this action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico against
the four Alonzos, James Garcia, John Herndon and the
Anaconda Company (formerly Anaconda Copper Mining
Company), a corporation, seeking a judgment quieting
the tithe to certain of the lands embraced in the state
eourt action and enjoining the plaintiffs in the state court
action from prosecuting such action. From an order grant-
ing a preliminary injunction the Alonzos have appealed.

In its complaint the United States alleged that the
title to eertain of the lands: embraced in the state court

1 }lereinafter referred to as the Pueblo.

4a

action was in the Pueblo, subject to regtrictions against”

alienation, and that the title to certain other lands em-
braced in the state court action was in the United States.

Subsequent to the commencement of the instant action
the plaintiffs in the state court action, by amendment
climivated .from that action lands ow ned by the United
States in fee simple and lands claimed by the United
States to be held by it in trust for the Pueblo, so'that the
state court action involved only. lands owned by the Pueblo
in fee simple and alleged to be subject to. restrictions
against alienation by the United States. ;

,

In its complaint the United States vallegeds that the
Pueblo is a nation er tribe of Indigus, recognized by the
Congress of the United States as,a“dependent Indian com-
munity; that it occupies lands#wned by the Pueblo in fee
simple, but subject to restrfetions imposed by the Federal
law against alienation without the consent of the United
States? : : °

In its complaint the Umited States further alleged that
prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the Pueblo pos-
sessed a good and complete title to a tract of land located
in the Territory of New Mexico known as the Paguate
Grant or the-Paguate Purchase; that the title ~~ -he
Pueblo to the lands within the Paguate Purchase was eon-
firmed by the Act of Congress of June 21, 1860, 12 Stat.
7!. as Claim No. 30 on a list. of claims | recommended for
confirmation by the Surveyor, teneraly pursuant to the
Act of Congress of July 22, 1854, 10 Stat. 308. That such
tithe of the Pueblo to 75,406.27 aeres of such lands was
lurther confirmed by a patent, dated September 22, 1884,
from the United States to the Pueblo.

“ Because of the amendment in the state court action, reference
to the allegations in the complaint in the instant action to lands
owned by the United States for the use of the Pueblo and lands
owned by the United States in fee simple will be omitted. :

ee

epnenr wee See

ja

‘That by the Act of June 7, 1924, 43 Stat. 636, referred

~to as the Pueblo Lands Board Act, Congress created «he

Pueblo Lands Board and authorized it to investigate, de-
termine and report ‘‘the lands within the exterior bound. |
aries of any land granted or confirmed to the Pueblo In
dians of New Mexico by any authority of the United States
of America, or any prior sovereignty, or acquired by said
Indigns as a community hy purchase or otherwise, title
to which the said board shall find not to have heen ex-
tinguished in accordance with the provisions of this Act,
and the board shall not include in their report any claims |
of non-Indian claimants who, in the opinion of said board
after investigation, hold and oceupy such claims of which

> they have had adverse possession, in accordance with the

provisions of section 4 of this Act.”’

That such Board investigated the claim of the Pueblo
to the lands intkaded in the Paguate Purchase and found
there was a conflict between the Paguate Purchase and
the Cubero Grant of 1833 as to a portion of the Paguate
Purchase, as described in the patent of September 22,

1884, and further found that the title of the claimants to

the Cubero Graut was superior to the claim of the AYblo,
as to the conflicting portion, and that such finding had the
effect of ‘extinguishing the claim of the Pueblo to such
portion of the Paguate Purchase, amounting to 10,601.86
acres. That the Board futher found there was a conflict
between the Paguate Purchase and lands claimed by the
owners of the Cebolleta Grant and certain private land
claimants, and that the Board found that the claim of
the Pueblo was superior to the title of such adverse claim-
ants. That the Board further found there was a conflict
between the Paguate Purchase and the lands claimed by
the owners of the Baca Grant of 1769, and that the claim
of the Pueblo was superior to the title of such adverse
claimants. And that the Board determined that, except
for the 10,601.86 acres found to be a part of ihe Cubero

‘

, 6a

Grant, the Pueblo had a superior title to all of the lands
within the Paguate Purchase described in the patent.

That pursuant to #3 of the Pueblo Lands Board Act
an action was instituted by the United States in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico to
quiet the title of the Pueblo to the lands involved in the
conflicts between the Paguate Purchase and the Cebolleta
and Baca Grants, entitled United States v. Armijo, et al.,
No. 2080.

That on July 20, 1931, upon stipulation of the parties
‘a final decree was entered in No. 2080, which quieted the
title against the United States and the Pueblo in favor
of the owners of the Cebolleta Grant and 72 private claim-
ants to 10,698.93 acres and quieted title in the Pueblo to
- 14,615.76 aeres involved in the conflict.

That on November 7, 1931, a deeree was entered in.
No. 2080, quieting the title against the United States and
the Pueblo in favor of the claimants under the Baca Grant
to 2,527.29 acres and quieting the title in the Pueblo te
3,809.63 acres involved in the conflict between the Paguate—
Purchase and the Baea Grant.

That the Pueblo is the owner, entitled to. the exclusive
possession of 51,578.19 acres of the original Paguate Pur-
chase, being the area embraced in sueh purchase, less the
10,601.86 aeres found by the, Pueblo Lands Board to be
a part of the Cubere Grant, 10,698.93 acres adjudged to
the owners of the Cebolleta Grant and private claimants
and 2,527.29 acres adjudged to the owners of the Baca
Grant in No. 2080.3

That the Pueblo granted to the Anaconda Company a
permit to prospect for uranium and other minerals as-
sociated therewith, covering the lands owned by the Pueblo
in the Paguate Purchase. That such permit was dated

* The complaint sets out a particular description of sueh 51,578.19
acres of the lands excluded from the Paguate Purchase.

————

7a

October t8, 1951, and was approved by the Department of
Interior on November 8, 1951. :

That the Pueblo, on March 27, 1952, eranted to the
Anaconda Company a mining lease for the extraction of
uranium and other minerals associated therewith from
799.09 acres of lands embraced in the Paguate Purchase,’
that such lease was approved by the Department of In-
terior on May 7, 1952, and remains in full force and ¢ffect.

- That prior to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and
at all times sinee, the Pueblo -had been and now is the
owner in fee simple, subject to the resirictions on alien-
ability imposed by the United States, of such 51,578.19
acres of the original Paguate Purchase and that during
all of such time the Pueblo has been and now is in open,
notorious, actual, exclusive, continuous and adverse pos-
session of such lands. “That the Alonzos and Garcia are
claiming some individual right, title, or interest apart
trom their rights as members of the Pueblo in such 51,578.19
acres of land; adverse -to the Pueblo, which constitutes a
cloud upon the title of the Pueblo.

That the Pueblo is the owner of 2,174.332 acres of land
acquired by purchase from the Board of Trustees of the
Cebolleta Grant, which were conveyed to it by deed from
such Board of Trustee to the Pueblo, dated April 16,
1937. That such-lands so purchased are a portion of the
lands awarded to the Board of Trustees of the Cebolleta
Grant by the judgment of July 20, 1931.

That the Pueblo is the owner of 2,519.028 acres acquired
by purchase from Cruz Baca and Tiburcia Baea, his wile,
which were conveyed by the Bacas to the Pueblo by deed
dated December 9, 1936. That the last-mentioned lands
are the identical lands awarded to the claimants under the
Baca Grant by tte judgment of November 7, 1931.

$Such lands were particularly deseribed in the complaint and
were part of the lands, title to which was quicted in the Pueblo by
judgment entered in Nu. 2080 Ex uity.
Ss | -
°

nm
y

el

Sa
That the Pueblo is the owner of 480 acres of land ac-
quired by purchase from the Bacas, which were conveyed
to the Pueblo by the Bacas by deed dated July 31, 1939.

That the lands last-mentioned are not within the Paguate
Purchase, but adjoin it on the, north.

That the Pueblo is the owner and entitled to the exclu-
sive possession of all the lands referred to in the last three
preceding paragraphs. That

9a

action, No. 8016, and the relief sought in such action;
that the purpose and effect of such state court action is
to challenge the title and possesion of the United States
and the Pueblo to the 51,578.19 acres of the original
Paguate Purchase and the lands acquired by purchase by
the Pueblo, as above set out.

That in such state court action, No. 8016, the plaintiffs
therein seek to oust the United States and the Pueblo
from such lands to which the Pueblo has title and pos-
session under the guardianship uf the United States; that
the United States is not and cannot be made a party to
the state court action, No. 8016; that in the instant action
the United States has brought before the court all of the
interested parties, so that all conflicting claims may be
litigated in one action; that a judgment entered in the
instant action will be binding upon the Pueblo and all
other parties named as defendants in such action; that
the state court action, No. 8016, constitutes a threat against
and interference with the substantial right of the Pueblo,
as a ward of the United States; and the mineral lessee,
and that the United States does not have an adequate
remedy at law.

That the Anaconda Company discovered a very valu-
able deposit of uranium-bearing ore in the lands covered
by the lease, has proceeded under such lease to develop
a mine, known as the Jackpile Mine, from which large
amounts of uranium-bearing dre are being removed, and
that under the lease the Pueblos have received from the
Anaconda Company royalties of approximately $2,906,000.

In United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28 47, the court
said:

‘*As before i-.dicated, by an uniform course of action
beginning as early as 1854 and continued up to the
present time. the legislative and executive branches
of the Government have regarded and treated the
Pueblos of New Mexi¢o as dependent communities

10a

.

entitled to its aid and protection, like other Indian
‘tribes, and, considering their Indian lineage, isolated
and communal life, primitive customs’ and _ limited
civilization, this assertion of guardianship over them
cannot be said to be arbitrary but must be regarded
as both authorized and controlling. * * *’”

Under the Spanish law and the laws of Mexico the
Pueblo Indians in New Mexico, ‘although having full title
to their lands, were regarded as in a state of tutelage and
under a special national guardianship and they could alien-
ate their land only under governmental — and
with the approval of des{gnated authorities.”

While the ‘‘Indians of each pueblo’’ in New Mexico,
‘*collectively as a community, have a fee simple title to
the lands of the pueblo * * * their lands, like the tribal
lands of other Indians owned in fee under patents from
the United States, are ‘subject to the legislation of Con-
gress enacted in the exercise of the Government’s guardian-
ship’ over Indian tribes and their property.’”®

Two significant manifestations of the purpose-of Con-
gress to subject the Pueblo Indians and their lands to ’
such legislation oceurred after the decision in United States
v. Joseph, 94 U.S. G14, namely: a decision of the Terri- ©
torial Court of New Mexico !u 1904, holding that Pueblo
lands were taxable, Territory v. Persons, Ete., in Delin-
quent Tax List, 12 N. M. 139, 76 P. 307, ‘‘was promptly
followed by a congressional enactment annulling the taxes
already levied and forbidding further levies,’’ 33 Stat.
1069; and a decision of the Territorial Court, United
States v. Maresy et al” 14 N. M. 1, 88 P. 1128, ‘‘constru-
ing the statute which prohibits the sale of liquor to In-
dians and its introduction into the Indian country as not

®See also United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432, 439, 440.
7 United States v. Candelaria, 271 U. S. 432, 443.
* United States v. Candelaria, 271 U. 8. 432, 440.

rad

:

lla

including’’ the Pueblo 'ndians or their lands “‘was shortly

followed by an enactment’’ by Congress ‘‘declaring that
the statute should be construed as including both,’’ 36
Stat. 580. ;

Section 12 of the Act of June 30, 1834, 4 Stat. 723,
730 provided : ;

‘‘That no purchase, grant, lease, or other convey-
ance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from
any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of

a any validity in law or, equity, unless the same be made
by treaty or convention entered intg pursuant to the
constitution. * * *’’

The provisions of the last-mentioned statute, ‘with
others ‘regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian
tribes’ was extended, dver ‘the Indian tribes’ of New
Mexico’’ by the Act of February?27, 1851, 9 Stat. 574, 586.

‘In holding that the phrase ‘‘Indian tribes’? as used
in the last two statutes beforémentioned included the
Pueblo Indians, the court in United States v. Candelaria,
271 U. S. 432, 441 said: ma

‘‘While there is no express reference in the provision
to Pueblo Indians, we think it must be taken as in-
cluding them. They are plainly within its spirit and,
in our opinion, fairly within its words, ‘any trjbe of
Indians.’- Although sedentary, industrious and. dis-
posed to peace, they are Indians in race, customs and
domestic government, always have lived in isolated
communities, and are a simple, uninformed people, ill-
prepared to cope wih the intelligence and greed of
other races. It therefore is difficult to believe that
Congress in 1851 was not intending to protect them,
but only the nomadie and savage Indians then living
in New Mexico. A more reasonable view is that the
term ‘Indian tribe’ was used in the acts of 1834 and
1851 in the sense of ‘a body of Indians of the same or
a similar race, gnited in a community under one leader-
ship or governr ent, and inhabiting a particular though

sometimes ill-defined oo "
|

——}

12a

The\ court further held. in the Candelaria ease that Con-
gress had imposed a restriction on the alienation of the |
lands ot the Pueblo Indians, to which the Pueblos had Tull”
title, as a’continuation of a “poliey which the governments
of Spain and Mexico ‘‘had deemed essential to the pro-
tection of such Indians.’” —

Finally, the court in the Candelaria case held that the
Pueblo Indians ‘‘are wards of the United States and hold
their lands subject to the restriction that the same cannot
be alienated in any-wise without its consent. * * *’’; that
a transfer of the lands of a New Mexico Pueblo ‘“eontrary 2
to the inhibition of Congress would be a’ violation of the
governmental rights of the United States arising from its
obligation to a dependant people’’; that ‘‘no stipulations,
contracts, or judgments rendered in suits to which the Gov-
ernment is a stranger can affect its interest’’; and that
“The atuthor ‘ity of the United States to enforce the re-

—straint lawfully created cannot be impaired by’ any action
without its consent.’

Moreover, $17 of the Act of June 7, 1924, 43 Stat, 636,
641 provided:

‘“No right, title, or interest in or to the lands of
the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico to which their title
has not been extinguished as hereinbefore determined
shall hereafter be acquired or initiated by virtue of
the laws of the State of New Mexico, or in any other
manner except as may hereafter be provided by Con-
gress, and no sale, grant, lease of any character, or
other conveyance of lands, or any title or claim thereto,

made by any pueblo as a community, or any Pueblo
Indian living in a community of Pueblo Indians, in
the State of New Mexico, shall be of any validity in
law or in equity unless the same be first approved by
the Secretary of the Interior.”’

d States'v, Candelaria, 271 U. S. 432, 440, 442.
1° United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432, 442, 444.

13a

That provision insured that the restrictions implicit in
the decision in United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28, 48,
would continue in force as to lands, title to which was
found to be in the Pueblos. ’

- Counsel for the Alonzos, while impliedly conceding that
the lands of the Pueblo generally have at all times been
subject to restrictions against alienation, without the con-
sent of the United States, make the narrow contention
that lands acquired by the Pueblo by purchase and to
which they hold the fee simple title are not subject to
restrictions against alienation....They predicate their con-
tention in part on language found in §2 of the Now Mexico,
Arizona Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 557, 558, 559, reading as
follows: aoe
‘‘That the people inhabiting said proposed State do
agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right
and title to * * * all lands lying within said boundaries
owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes the right
or title to which shall have been acquired through or
from the United States or any prior sovereigniy, and
that until the title of such Indian or Indian tribes shall
have been extinguished the same shall be and remain
subject to the disposition and under the absolute juris-

diction and control of the Congress of the United
States;* * *.°’’ (Italics ours.)

It will be observed, however, that the language of the
Act of June 30, 1834, imposes restrictions against the
purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands or
of any title or claim thereto from any Indian nation or
tribe of Indians, and that the word ‘‘lands’’ is in nowise
limited by any express or implied language in the Act.

The legislative history of the Enabling Act shows that
the purpose of §2,.above quoted, was to preclude any pos-
sible challenge by the state of titles acquired by Indians
through grants made by the Governments of Spain or
Mexico. We think it clear there was no intent to limit
the provisions of the Act of June 30, 1834.

—_

l4a

Moreover, the reason for the Ymposition of the restrie-
tions is in nowise related to the manner in which the Indians
acquired their lands. The purpose of restrictions is to
protect the Indians, ‘‘a simple, uninformed people, ill.

repared to cope.with the intelligence and greed of other
races’! against the loss of their lands by improvident
disposition or through overreaching by members of other
rices. There is as great a need for such protection of
the Pueblos in New Mexico, with respect to their lands
acquired by purchase, as there is to lands otherwise ae-
quired. *

Furthermore, the’51,578.19 acres of land of the original
Paguate Purchase and the Ranchos lands were_ acquired
by the Pueblo prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
and were owned and possessed by it at the time of the
passage of the Act of June 7, 1924. Section 17 of that Act,
quoted above, insured that the restrictions which Congress
recognized as theretofore existing, with respect lands
owned and possessed by the New Mexico Pueblos, as a
community, should continue, exeept in cases where the
Pueblos’ title had been extinguished, as provided for in
such Act. Ms"

&

Finally, United States v. Candelaria, 271 U. S. 482, was
an action brought by the United States as guardian of the
Pueblo of Laguna to quiet the title to the lands embraced
in the Paguate Purchase and in that case the court held
that such lands were subject to restrietions against aliena-
tion without the consent of the United States.

We are of the opinion that the restrictions against
alienation apply to lands aequired by the Pueblo through
purchase, as well as to lands acquired by the Pueblo in
any other manner.

But if we be wrong in our conclusion, which we do not
concede, that the Enabling Act did not by implication re-

™ T'nited States v. Candelariz, 271 U. S. 432, 442.

loa

move restrictions with respect to lands acquired by the
Pueblos by purchase, such restrictions were clearly reim-
posed by §17 of the Act of 1924, which clearly applies
without. qyalification to all. lands of the Pueblo Indians
of New Mexico. The power of Congress to reimpose re-
strictions while the Pueblos were still wards of the Nation
is not open to question.”

With respect to the right of the United States to
injunetive relief, we think the decision of the United States
in Leiter Minerals, Inc.’ v. United States, 352 U. S. 120,
is controlling. Leiter brought an action in a Louisiana
state court against certain mineral lessees of the United
States. Leiter was out of possession, but claimed title
to and sought to have itself declared owner of the mineral
rights under land owned by the United States and also
sought an accounting for oil and other minerals removed
by such lessees under.their lease from the United States.
‘Leiter founded its claim on Louisiana Act No. 315 of
1940, La. Rev. Stat. 1950, 9:5806, which, it alleged, made
‘‘imprescriptible’’ a reservation of mineral rights in a
deed of December 21, 1938,.to the United States by its
predecessor in title. After the commencement of the state
court action the United States filed an independent action
to quiet its title to the mineral rights, naming all the
parties to the state court action as defendants, and sought
a preliminary and permanent injunction to restrain the
defendants from further prosecution of the state court
action. The Federal District Court issued a preliminary
injunction. On appeal, the United States-Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Cireuit affirmed the order granting the pre-
liminary injunetion.’* The Supreme Court granted certi-
orari and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
In its decision the Supreme Court held that the United

12 Brader v. James, 246 U. S. 88, 96; MeCurdy v. United States,
°246.U. S. 263, 273.
13 Lefter Minerals, Inc. v. United States, 5 Cir., 224 F. 2d 381.
‘

16a

States was not precluded from seeking injunctive relief
by the provisions of 28 USC §2283, and that injunctive
relief, under the circumstances, was proper.

Counsel for the Alonzos seek to distinguish the Leiter
case by reason of the fact that there the Government was
-the owner of the lands in fee simple and in the instant
ease the fee simple title to the lands involved is in the
Pueblo and the Government is suing to vindicate the title
of the Pueblo. But restricted Indian land is property in
which the United States has an interest. In United States
v. Hellard, 322 U. S. 363, the question was presented as
to whether full-blood Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes
could be divested of title to restricted land by a sale
pursuant to a judgment of a state court in a partition
proceeding to which the United States was not a party.
In holding that the United States was not bound by the
judgment in the state court action to which it was not a
party, the court in its opinion said:

‘*Restrieted Indian land is property in which the
Inited States has an interest. ‘This national interest
is not to be expressed in terms of property, or to be
limited to the assertion of rights incident to the owner-
ship of a reversion or to the holding of a technical
title in trust.’ Heckman vy. United States, 224 U. S.
413, 487. Though the Indian’s interest is alienated by
judicial decree, the United States may sue to cancel
the judgment and set the conveyance aside where it
was not a party to the action. Bowling & Miami
Investment Co. v. United States, 233 U. S. 528; Privett
v. United States, 266 U. S. 201; Sunderland v. United
States, 266 U. S. 226. Under §2 of the Act of June
14, 1918 lands partitioned in kind to full-bloods remain
restricted. Only if the land is sold at partition sale
are the restrictions removed. The governmental inter-
est throughout the partition proceedings is as clear
as it would be if the fee were in the United States.
Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S. 382, 387-388:
Town of Okemah v. United States, 140 F. 2d 963.
soe (eee ore

lfva

We are of the opinion that the Governmental interest
in the instant action is as great as it would be if the fee
to the lands involved were in the United States. Indeed,
since the United States is suing as a guardian of a depend-
ent nation in diseharge of a fiduciary duty, its right and
duty to protect the interests of its wards may be even
greater than it would if it were suing in its own behalf
with respect to its own iands.

Counsel for the Alonzos further contend that the United
States could have appeared in the state court action and
that it was its duty so to do, but in the Leiter case the
Supreme Court said:

«<* * * In this case, a private party is seeking by
a state proceeding to obtain property currently in
the hands of persons holding under the United States;
the United States,is seeking to protect that possession »
and quiet title-by a federal court proceeding. There-
fore, since the position of the United States is essen-
tially a defensive one, we think that it should be per-
mitted to chocse the forum in this case, even though
the state litigation has the elements of an action char-
acterized as quasi in rem. * * * ’’ (Italies ours.)

Accordingly, we conclude that the United States is en-
titled to injunctive relief.

Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0030%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.