Johnson v. Riddle
Citations
- 240 U.S. 467
- 36 S. Ct. 393
- 60 L. Ed. 752
- 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1473
Syllabus
<p>Under the provisions relating to town sites, in the Atoka Agreement bfetween the United States and the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes (found in Act of June 28, 1898, c. 517; 30 Stat. 495, 505, 508),-the preferential right to purchase improved town lots was conferred upon the owner of “permanent, substantial, and valuable improvements, other than fences) tillage, and temporary houses,” without regard' to .the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the previous possession of the land-by the owner of the improvements.</p> <p>Under the provisions of the Atoka Agreement relating .to purchase of town lots- (30 Stat. 508), apd regulations contained in subsequent legislation, authority to appraise lots, improved or unimproved, to ascertain the ownership apd value'of the'improvements, and to dispose of the lots in conformity’ to the provisions of the Agreement, was conferred upon the town site commission, and afterwards upon the United States Indian Inspector, subject to the supervision of the .Secretary of the Interior.</p> <p>In case of contest,’the findings of fact by the Commission or the Inspector, affirmed on final - appeal by the Secretary of the Interior, are-binding upon the courts, in the absence of gross .mistake or fraud, and the judicial ■ inquiry is lipaited to determining whether there was clear error of law that resulted in awarding the right' of purchase, and ultimately issuing the patent, to the wrong party.</p> <p>The Atoka Agreement (Act .of June 28, 1898, c. 517, 30 Stat. 505,' 508), when ratified by Congress and by tjie Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes, superseded all customs, if .such there were, that had sanctioned the leasing of town lots to non-citizens of the tribes; and its provisions could not be carried’ into' effect without terminating existing rights of occupancy, if any, .saving as these coincided-with the ownership of permanent improvements.'</p> <p>A tenant is pot estopped to show that his landlord’s title has. expired' or has been terrhinated by opera
Judges: Pitney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Ellis v. CatesFourth Circuit· 1949-12-20· cited 35×
- Hanson v. HoffmanTenth Circuit· 1940-05-24· cited 22×
- United States v. HayesEighth Circuit· 1927-05-28· cited 17×
- Fisher v. RuleSupreme Court· 1919-01-07· cited 11×
- Koehne v. HarveyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1946-02-11· cited 10×
- Behr v. HurwitzNew Jersey Court of Chancery· 1918-10-22· cited 10×
- Harnage v. MartinSupreme Court· 1917-01-08· cited 6×
- Stockley v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1921-03-24· cited 4×
- Kirk v. OlsonSupreme Court· 1917-12-10· cited 3×
- Edenborn v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1925-03-04· cited 3×
- Creek Nation v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1942-06-01· cited 3×
- Eagle-Picher Lead Co. v. FullertonEighth Circuit· 1928-09-21· cited 1×
- Mason v. MasonUtah Supreme Court· 1955-04-08
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Shepley v. CowanSupreme Court· 1876-02-28· cited 228×
- Marquez v. FrisbieSupreme Court· 1879-12-18· cited 160×
- Rector v. GibbonSupreme Court· 1884-04-07· cited 59×
- SPARKS & Another v. PIERCE & OthersSupreme Court· 1885-11-16· cited 57×
- Bohall v. DillaSupreme Court· 1885-03-23· cited 50×
- Woodward v. De GraffenriedSupreme Court· 1915-06-14· cited 48×
- Ross v. StewartSupreme Court· 1913-02-24· cited 35×
- Trenouth v. San FranciscoSupreme Court· 1880-01-19· cited 28×
- Ross v. DaySupreme Court· 1914-01-05· cited 17×
- Kelly v. JohnsonCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory· 1897-01-30· cited 8×
- Ellis v. FitzpatrickCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory· 1901-10-04· cited 7×
- Hockett v. AlstonCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory· 1900-10-06· cited 6×
- Ellis v. FitzpatrickEighth Circuit· 1902-10-27· cited 6×
Sourced 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.