|
|
Brader v. James, 246 U.S. 88 (1918)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Brader v. James, 246 U.S. 88 (1918)
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 246 U.S. 79, click here.
Brader v. James No. 126 Argued January 7, 8, 1918 Decided March 4, 1918 246 U.S. 88
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Syllabus
Under the Supplemental Agreement with the Choctaws and Chickasaws of July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, a homestead allotment of a full-blood Choctaw became free from the restrictions imposed by § 12 at the death of the allottee, and the heir of the allottee, though a full-blood, might alienate the land without approval of the conveyance by the Secretary of the Interior. Mullen v. United States, 224 U.S. 448.
But, by virtue of the Act of April 26, 1906, c. 1876, 34 Stat. 137, § 22, the right in such case was again restricted so that the full-blood heir could no longer convey without the Secretary’s approval.
In determining the effect of the Act of 1906, supra, upon the right of a full-blood Indian to alienate, no distinction can be made between cases in which restrictions previously imposed were existent at the date of the act (Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U.S. 286) and those in which they had expired. Congress was dealing with tribal Indians still under its control and subject to national guardianship, and the act, comprehensive, and applying alike to all the Five Civilized Tribes, evinces a purpose to substitute a new and uniform scheme controlling alienation as to all the full-blood allottees and their full-blood heirs. Section 22 is to be construed accordingly.
In view of the repeated decisions of this Court, there can be no doubt of the constitutional authority of Congress to impose the new restriction. United States v. First National Bank, 234 U.S. 245, and United States v. Waller, 243 U.S. 452, distinguished.
49 Okl. 734 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Brader v. James, 246 U.S. 88 (1918) in 246 U.S. 88 246 U.S. 89–246 U.S. 93. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SQUABWLF2XYLR68.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Brader v. James, 246 U.S. 88 (1918), in 246 U.S. 88, pp. 246 U.S. 89–246 U.S. 93. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SQUABWLF2XYLR68.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Brader v. James, 246 U.S. 88 (1918). cited in 1918, 246 U.S. 88, pp.246 U.S. 89–246 U.S. 93. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SQUABWLF2XYLR68.
|