Privett v. United States
Citations
- 256 U.S. 201
- 41 S. Ct. 455
- 65 L. Ed. 889
- 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1662
Syllabus
<p>1. A homestead allotment of a half-blood Creek Indian, who died intestate leaving surviving issue, a member of the tribe, born since March 4, 1906, remains inalienable under § 9 of the Act of May 27, 1908, c. 199, 35 Stat. 312, during the lifetime of such issue, until April 26, 1931, if the Secretary of the Interior has not removed the restriction; and a deed made by the heirs in such circumstances is void. P. 203.</p> <p>2. A finding that a surviving son of a Creek allottee was born since ■ March 4, 1906, held sustained by the evidence. P. 203.</p> <p>3. In a suit to set aside deeds of an Indian allotment made by the heirs ■ f the allofitee in contravention of a restriction on alienation imposed by Congress, wherein the validity of the conveyances depended on the date of the birth of a surviving minor son of the allottee, held that the United States was in no respect concluded by a .finding of the date and a judgment upholding the conveyances, in a prior suit in the state court between the heirs and one claiming under the conveyances, 11 .vhich suit the United States was not a party. P. 203.</p> <p>261 Fed. Rep. 351, affirmed.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that where the United States sought to cancel conveyances by certain Indians, it was not bound by any judgment where it was not a party
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Devantee
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Minnesota v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1939-01-03· cited 519×
- United States v. CandelariaSupreme Court· 1926-06-01· cited 185×
- United States v. City of Tacoma, WashingtonNinth Circuit· 2003-06-04· cited 175×
- Sunderland v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1924-11-17· cited 109×
- United States v. HellardSupreme Court· 1944-05-22· cited 52×
- Lupe Alonzo, Jim Alonzo, Joe Alonzo and Valentino Alonzo v. United StatesTenth Circuit· 1957-09-25· cited 42×
- Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations v. SeitzTenth Circuit· 1952-04-07· cited 40×
- Town of Okemah v. United StatesTenth Circuit· 1944-02-18· cited 25×
- Bryan County, Okl. v. United StatesTenth Circuit· 1941-11-12· cited 24×
- County of Mahnomen v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1943-06-07· cited 19×
- Martinez v. MartinezNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1945-03-19· cited 14×
- Bacher v. PatencioS.D. California· 1964-08-12· cited 13×
- Collins v. CelebrezzeS.D. New York· 1966-01-13· cited 10×
- Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. New YorkN.D. New York· 2001-05-30· cited 9×
- United States v. CandelariaEighth Circuit· 1926-12-13· cited 8×
- Oklahoma ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. United StatesTenth Circuit· 1946-05-10· cited 7×
- Ramsey v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1932-11-03· cited 6×
- United States v. CathcardD. Nebraska· 1946-04-24· cited 5×
- United States v. MartinE.D. Oklahoma· 1930-12-11· cited 5×
- In re Palmer's WillE.D. Oklahoma· 1935-06-28· cited 5×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named Privett v. United States
4 other CourtListener records share this case name.
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.