United States v. Choctaw Nation
Citations
- 179 U.S. 494
- 21 S. Ct. 149
- 45 L. Ed. 291
- 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1889
Syllabus
<p>On the 4th day of June, 1891, the United States and the Wichita and Affiliated Bands of Indians entered into an agreement whereby the Indians ceded to the United States a tract of land which is described in the Opinion of the court in this case, and the United States agreed in consideration thereof that out of the territory so ceded there should be allotted to each member of the Wichita and Affiliated Bands of Indians in the Indian Territory, native and adopted, one hundred and sixty acres of land in the manner and form described in the agreement. This agreement was ratified by the Indian Appropriations Act of March 2, 1895, which further conferred jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims, to hear and determine the claim of the Choctaws and the Chickasaws to a right, title and interest in the lands so ceded, and to render judgment thereon, with a right of appeal to this court. Pursuant to that act this suit was brought. The Court of Claims, after reciting that the lands in dispute were acquired by the United States “ in trust for the settlement of Indians thereon, and in trust and for the benefit of said claimant Indians when the aforesaid trust shall cease; ” that “the Wichita and Affiliated Bands of Indians were by the United States located within the boundaries of the lands hereinbefore described;” that they “now number not more than one thousand, and sixty persops;” and that the location of the Wichitas and Affiliated Bands within said boundaries was “ for the purpose of affording them permanent settlement therein,” adjudged that the lands in dispute had been acquired and were held by the United States in trust for the purpose of settling Indians thereon, and that whenever that purpose was abandoned as to the whole or any part thereof then all the lands not so devoted to Indian settlement should be held in trust by the United States for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians exclusively. It was also adjudged that the members of the Wichita and Affiliated Bands, not e
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- court cannot reform treaty to achieve justice or fairness
- “[A]s a general rule in the interpretation of written instruments the intention of the parties must control, and [] such intention is to be gathered from the words used―the words being interpreted, not literally nor loosely, but according to their ordinary signification.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Harlan
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.