Jacobs v. Prichard
Citations
- 223 U.S. 200
- 32 S. Ct. 289
- 56 L. Ed. 405
- 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2226
Syllabus
<p>In allotting Indian lands, Congress can determine the conditions under which they shall be alienated by the allottees, and titles resting on deeds of Commissioners and consents of the allottees required by the statute under which the lands were allotted are to be determined by the Federal statute, and not by the laws of the States.</p> <p>Under the act of March 3, 1893, 27 Stat. 612, c. 209, and the amendatory act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, c. 3, carrying out the treaty with the Omaha Indians of 1854, the consent required to be given to the Commissioner for sale of land of allottee Indians in the Puyallup Reservation in Washington was not a mere power to sell which terminated with the death of the giver, but an agreement which continued in force after death.</p> <p>The rule that where ambiguity exists courts will -follow the construction placed on a statute by the Department charged with its execution is strengthened where the statute itself directs such Department to make the necessary regulations to carry it into effect.</p> <p>Habits of Indian life will be considered in construing a statute providing methods for a sale of Indian lands, and it will not be presumed that Congress would insert therein a condition which defeats an approved sale by the death of a roving Indian before the delivery of the deed.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “find[ing] no ambiguity in the act” but also finding “strength” for the Court’s interpretation in the executive’s “immediate and continued construction of the act”
- “fnd[ing] no ambiguity in the act” but also fnding “strength” for the Court's interpretation in the executive's “immediate and continued construction of the act”
- referring to the “rule which gives strength” to offcial interpretations if “ambiguity exist[s]”
- refer- ring to the “rule which gives strength” to official interpretations if “am- biguity exist[s]”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McKenna
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.