Skip to main content
· 6/14/1915

Woodward v. De Graffenried

Citations

  • 238 U.S. 284
  • 35 S. Ct. 764
  • 59 L. Ed. 1310
  • 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1621

Syllabus

<p>In an action to determine by what law the beneficiaries of a Creek allotment are to be determined where the allotment was selected by a Creek citizen and made by the Dawes Commission under § 11 of the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, followed first by the death of the allottee after .receiving the allotment and prior to the Original Creek Agreement and then by action of the Commission, after ratification of that agreement, .awarding the land to the heirs of the deceased allottee, and the ultimate issue of a patent to them, held after reviewing the history of the legislation of Congress in regard to distribution of Creek lands, that:</p> <p>The only lawful authority possessed by the Dawes Commission to allot Creek lands prior to the adoption of the Original Creek Agreement was derived from the Curtis Act.</p> <p>Under § 11 of the Curtis Act, allottees took no assignable or inheritable interest in the land or anything more than an exclusive ight to possess and enjoy the surface of the land during the lifetime of the(occupant.</p> <p>Decisions of the state court regarding descent of property, the earliest of which was made within three years and after the present action was commenced, cannot be regarded as a rule of property; but, while giving those decisions full weight, this court must examine the questions involved upon their merits.</p> <p>The rule that reports of the committee having the matter specially in charge, so far as they antedate the statute, may be resorted to as aid to interpretation, applies especially in construing the Curtis Act, to the reports of the Dawes Commission as that Commission was in a real sense “the eyes and the ears” of Congress pertaining to Indian Territory and the legislation was framed with special regard to its recommendations.</p> <p>Under the Original Creek Agreement, allotments made prior thereto under the Curtis Act, if not inconsistent therewith, were ' tó be treated as if made after the ratification thereof including designatio

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • lands “formerly part of the domain of the Creek Na- tion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pitney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.