Work v. United States Ex Rel. Lynn, 266 U.S. 161 (1924)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 266 U.S. 152, click here.

Work v. United States ex Rel. Lynn

No. 17

Argued January 16, 17, 1924
Decided November 17, 1924
266 U.S. 161

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

1. Under § 4 of the Act of March 3, 1921, c. 120, 41 Stat. 1249, regulating quarterly payments by the Secretary of the Interior to the members of the Osage Tribe of their income from interest on trust funds, bonuses, and royalties, the income of an adult member who has not received a certificate of competency and who has been placed under guardianship, as an incompetent person, by an Oklahoma county court, must be paid to such legal guardian, not to exceed the amount of $1,000 quarterly. P. 168.

2. A the duty to make such payments is plain, notwithstanding the loose framing of the statute, payment may be required of the Secretary by mandamus. P. 171.

3. But the excess, if any, of such incompetent’s income over $1,000 is not to be paid to the guardian, but to be invested in the securities, or deposited at interest in the bank, prescribed by the section, for the benefit of the incompetent, under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. P. 170.

4. The clause of the section requiring all "quarterly payments to legal guardians" and adults not having certificates of competency "to be paid under the supervision of the Superintendent of the Osage Agency" refers to a supervision designed to effectuate the payments specifically directed, but does not authorize the Secretary to impose a restriction as to how the money which he is directed to pay to a guardian shall be invested or deposited by the latter. P. 169.

5. Under § 3 of the Act of April 18, 1912, however (c. 83, 37 Stat. 86), the Secretary may invoke action by the county court in respect of any matter affecting the Indian ward’s estate, and is entitled to full consideration of the matter thus presented. Id.

52 App.D.C. 155, 285 F. 889, reversed.

Error to a judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia which sustained the Supreme Court of the District in awarding a writ of mandamus.