The New York Times The New York Times Washington   

Powered by: FindLaw

Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
MCKAY v. KALYTON, 204 U.S. 458 (1907)

U.S. Supreme Court

MCKAY v. KALYTON, 204 U.S. 458 (1907)

204 U.S. 458

WILLIAM McKAY (Substituted for Mary Kalyton) et al., Plffs. in Err.,
AGNES KALYTON, by Louise Kalyton, Her Guardian ad Litem.
No. 181.

Argued January 25, 1907.
Decided February 25, 1907.

This suit was commenced in the circuit court of Umatilla county, Oregon, by the filing of a complaint in the name of Agnes Kalyton, suing by her mother, Louise Kalyton, as guardian ad litem. Mary Kalyton and six other persons were made defendants, one such (Charles Wilkins) being sued as the acting United States Indian agent at the Umatilla reservation.

It was alleged in substance as follows: By virtue of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. at L. 340, chap. 319), and the amendments [204 U.S. 458, 459]   thereto, a tract of land in the Umatilla Indian reservation was duly allotted on April 21, 1891, to one Joe Kalyton, a member of the Cayuse tribe, residing on said reservation. It was alleged that in or about the year 1893 Joe Kalyton, the allottee, in accordance with the customs of the Cayuse tribe, married Louise _____, an Indian woman of that tribe, and the plaintiff, Agnes Kalyton, was issue of the marriage. In 1898 Joe Kalyton died intestate, leaving the plaintiff as his sole heir, and, under the laws of Oregon and the provisions of the act of Congress referred to, she became entitled to the land allotted to her father, and to the possession and enjoyment thereof. It was charged that Mary Kalyton and four of the defendants, all insolvent, claiming to be the heirs of the deceased, had taken and held possession if the land in question, which had a rental value of $274.75 per annum. It was alleged that one of the defendants, named Glasscock, claimed to have some interest in the land, and was confederating with the other defendants, who were wrongfully alleging themselves to be the heirs of Joe Kalyton, with the object of depriving plaintiff of the use of the land and the enjoyment of the rents and profits thereof. Averring that, under the rules and regulations of the Department of the Interior, in order that plaintiff might obtain the use and enjoyment of the land, it was requisite that her status as legal heir of the deceased should be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction, the court was asked to so decree and to perpetually restrain the defendants from interfering with her possession and use of the land. General relief was also prayed.

An answer was filed on behalf of the defendant Mary Kalyton. It was therein denied in substance that there had been a marriage between Joe and Louise Kalyton, and that the plaintiff was their child, and, averring that Joe Kalyton was a resident and citizen of Oregon and had died intestate, unmarried, and without any lineal descendant, it was alleged that the defendant, as the sister of Joe Kalyton, was his sole heir, and as such was the owner of, and entitled to the posses- [204 U.S. 458, 460]   sion of , the land in controversy and to its enjoyment. A decree was prayed quieting her alleged title.

The others of the defendants, who were alleged to be confederating with Mary Kalyton, filed a disclaimer of any interest in the lands in controversy. The cause was heard by the court. Deciding that, if Joe Kalyton and Louis Kalyton had been married according to the custom of the Indians of the Cayuse tribe, such marriage would have been void, and that there had been no marriage between the parties, because none had been solemnized in accordance with the laws of the state of Oregon, the plaintiff was held to be an illegitimate child of the deceased, and to have no right, title, or interest in or to the lands in question, and a decree was entered in favor of the defendant Mary Kalyton.

The cause was appealed to the supreme court of the state of Oregon. That court, having found that Joe and Louise Kalyton were married according to the custom and usage of the Indian tribe to which they belonged, and that the plaintiff was the issue of such marriage, held, in view of the legislation of Congress, 'that the plaintiff herein was born in lawful wedlock and is the sole heir of Joe Kalyton, deceased, and, as such, entitled to the possession of the real property of which he died seised.' The decree of the trial court was, therefore, reversed, and a decree was entered in favor of the appellant in accordance with the opinion. A motion for a rehearing was made and overruled. This motion was based upon the contention that the court had erred in taking jurisdiction of the cause, for the reason that it involved the title and right to possession of public land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Indians, and hence the United States was a necessary party defendant, and not subject to the jurisdiction of a state court. We say the petition for a rehearing was based upon the grounds just stated, although the petition is not in the record, because it is manifest that such was the case from the opinion which the court delivered in refusing the rehearing. 45 Or. 116, 74 Pac. 491, 78 Pac. 332. In that opinion [204 U.S. 458, 461]   the question whether the matter was one of exclusive Federal cognizance was elaborately considered, and it was decided that it was not, because a decree as to the right of possession would not interfere with the title or trust interest of the United States. And the court declared that, for the purposes of determining its jurisdiction, it was wholly irrelevant to consider whether it would have the power to enforce its decree for the possession of the allotted land against the officer of the United States in charge of the Indian reservation in case that official should decline to give effect to the decree for possession.

The case was then brought to this court.

Messrs. Samuel Herrick, T. G. Hailey, and R. J. Slater for plaintiffs in error. [204 U.S. 458, 462]   Messrs. William Frye White and John B. Cotton for defendant in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice White: [204 U.S. 458, 463]  

Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

It is contended that we are without jurisdiction because no title, right, or immunity was specially set up or claimed under any Federal statute and denied. But, leaving aside for a moment all other considerations, it is plain that the defendant below set up a claim of immunity from suit in the state court under the laws of the United States, and that the right to the immunity so asserted under an act or acts of Congress was expressly considered and denied by the state court. True it is that the immunity which was asserted was first claimed in a petition for rehearing; but, as the question was raised, was necessarily involved, and was considered and decided adversely by the state court, there is jurisdiction. Leigh v. Green, 193 U.S. 79 , 48 L. ed. 623, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390. [204 U.S. 458, 464]   At the threshold lies the question raised and decided below relative to the jurisdiction of the state court over the controversy.

Allotments of land in severalty to Indians residing upon the Umatilla reservation, in Oregon, were authorized by the act of Congress of March 3, 1885, chap. 319 (23 Stat. at L. 340), which contained the following provision:

The allotment to Joe Kalyton was made on April 21, 1891. Before that allotment, Congress, on February 8, 1887 (chap. 119, 24 Stat. at L. 388), passed what is known as the general allotment act. By that act, as said in United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 435 , 47 S. L. ed. 532, 535, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478, provision was made for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations, and for extending the protection of the laws of the United States and the territories over the Indians. To that end the President was authorized, whenever, in his opinion, a reservation or any part thereof was advantageous for agriculture and grazing purposes, to cause it, or any part thereof, to be surveyed, or resurveyed, if necessary, and to allot the lands in the reservation in severalty to any Indian located thereon, in certain quantities specified in the statute, the allotments to be made by special agents appointed for that purpose, and by the [204 U.S. 458, 465]   agents in charge of the special reservations on which the allotments were made. In one of the provisos of the 1st section of the act it was declared--

A provision of like nature to that heretofore excerpted from the act of March 3, 1885, was embodied in 5 of the general allotment act of 1887, reading as follows (24 Stat. at L. 389, chap. 119):

It was decided, in view of the object to be accomplished [204 U.S. 458, 467]   by allotting Indian lands in severalty, that it was not within the power of a state to tax either the permanent improvements made on allotted lands or the personal property consisting of cattle, horses, and other property of like character which might be furnished to Indians for use upon such land. And, answering a question as to whether the United States had such an interest in the controversy or in its subjects as entitled it to maintain the suit, the court declared (p. 444, 188 U. S., p. 538, 47 L. ed ., p. 483, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep.) that no argument to establish that proposition was necessary. Nor are the principles which were thus announced as to the nature and character of an allotment of Indian lands and the interest of the United States therein as trustee before the expiration of the period for their final disposition in any way affected by the decision in Re Heff, 197 U.S. 488 , 49 L. ed. 848, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 506, dealing with the subjection of allottee Indians in their personal conduct to the police regulations of the state of which they had become citizens.

The present suit was commenced in 1899. At that time there was in force an act approved August 15, 1894, chap. 290 (28 Stat. at L. 286), in which it was provided inter alia, as follows (p. 305):

And it was provided that 'the judgment or decree of any such court in favor of any claimant to an allotment of land shall have the same effect, when properly certified to the Secretary of the Interior, as if such allotment had been allowed and approved by him.' [204 U.S. 458, 468]   Considering the act of 1894 in Hy-Yu-Tse-Mil-Kin v. Smith, 194 U.S. 413 , 48 L. ed. 1045, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681, the court said:

The Rickert Case settled that, as the necessary result of the legislation of Congress, the United States retained such control over allotments as was essential to cause the allotted land to inure during the period in which the land was to be held in trust 'for the sole use and benefit of the allottees.' As observed in the Smith Case, 194 U.S. 408 , 48 L. ed. 1043, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, prior to the passage of the act of 1894, 'the sole authority for setting disputes concerning allotments resided in the Secretary of the Interior.' This being settled, it follows that, prior to the act of Congress of 1894, controversies necessarily involving a determination of the title, and, incidentally, of the right to the possession, of Indian allotments while the same were held in trust by the United States, were not primarily cognizable by any court, either state or Federal. It results, therefore, that the act of Congress of 1894, which delegated to the courts of the United States the power to determine such questions, cannot be construed as having conferred upon the state courts the authority to pass upon Federal questions over which, prior to the act of 1894, no court had any authority. The purpose of the act of 1894 to continue the exclusive Federal control over the subject is manifested by the provision of that act which commands that a judgment or decree rendered [204 U.S. 458, 469]   in any such controversy shall be certified by the court to the Secretary of the Interior. By this provision, as pointed out in the Smith Case, supra, the United States consented to submit its interest in the trust estate and the future control of its conduct concerning the same to the result of the decree of the courts of the United States,-a power which such courts could alone exercise by virtue of the consent given by the act. The subsequent legislation of Congress, instead of exhibiting a departure from this policy, confirms it. By the amendments to the act of 1894, approved February 6, 1901, chap. 217 (31 Stat. at L. 760) it is expressly required that in suits authorized to be brought in the circuit courts of the United States respecting allotments of Indian lands, 'the parties thereto shall be the claimant as plaintiff and the United States as party defendant.' Nothing could more clearly demonstrate than does this requirement, the conception of Congress that the United States continued, as trustee, to have an active interest in the proper disposition of allotted Indian lands, and the necessity of its being made a party to controversies concerning the same, for the purpose of securing a harmonious and uniform operation of the legislation of Congress on the subject.

The suggestion made in argument that the controversy here presented involved the mere possession, and not the title, to the allotted land, is without merit, since the right of possession asserted of necessity is dependent upon the existence of an equitable title in the claimant under the legislation of Congress to the ownership of the allotted lands. Indeed, that such was the case plainly appears from the excerpt which we have made from the concluding portion of the opinion of the supreme court of Oregon.

Because, from the considerations previously stated, we are constrained to the conclusion that the court below was without jurisdiction to entertain the controversy, we must not be considered as intimating an opinion that we deem that the principles applied by the court in disposing of the merits of the case were erroneous. [204 U.S. 458, 470]   The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oregon is reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice Brewer, and Mr. Justice Peckham dissent.

Copyright © 2003 FindLaw