Sizemore v. Brady

Citations

• 235 U.S. 441
• 35 S. Ct. 135
• 59 L. Ed. 308
• 1914 U.S. LEXIS 975

Syllabus

<p>The Original Creek Agreement of March 1, 1901, was not a grant in prossenti which invested the then living members.of the tribe and their heirs with absolute rights that could not be recalled or impaired by Congress without violating the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,</p> <p>Unless and until the Original Creek Agreement of 1901 was carried into effect Congress possessed plenary power as before to deal with the lands and funds to which it related as tribal property. Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665.</p> <p>The Supplemental Creek Agreement of 1902 and the Act of May 27, 1902, repealing the .provisions of the act of March 1,1901, recognizing the tribal laws of descent and distribution, and declaring that the descent and distribution of Creek lands and moneys should -be in accordance with the specified laws of Arkansas, were valid acts within the plenary power of Congress to deal with Indians and their tribal property.</p> <p>An exertion of the administrative control of the Government over tribal property of tribal Indians is subject to change by Congress at any time before it is carried into effect and while tribal relations continue.</p> <p>The descent and distribution of a Creek Indian Allotment, not selected or made until after the Supplemental Creek Agreement of 1902 went into effect, are controlled under that agreement by Chapter 49 of Mansfield’s Digest of the Law of Arkansas.</p> <p>Under Chapter 49 of Mansfield’s Digest of the Law of Arkansas a paternal cousin of the intestate inherits real estate to the exclusion of maternal cousins.</p>