Issuance of a fee simple patent for an allotment in the White
Earth Indian Reservation, Minnesota, under the clause of the Act of
March 1, 1907, c. 2285, 34 Stat. 1015, 1034, which declares
that
Page 242 U. S. 372
such allotments when held by adult mixed-blood Indians shall be
free of restrictions on alienation and patentable in fee, implies
an administrative finding that the patentee was of age when the
patent issued.
While this finding is decisive of the allottee's age for the
purpose of sustaining his right to the title freed from the
restrictions which Congress had imposed by the allotting acts, c.
119, 5, 24 Stat. 388; c. 24, § 3, 25 Stat. 642, it does not
conclusively establish his majority for the purpose of determining
whether a deed of the land which he made after patent was subject,
under the state law, to disaffirmance as a deed made in
infancy.
The restrictions being removed and the fee simple patent issued,
the allottee, pursuant to the Act of May 8, 1906, c. 2348, 34 Stat.
182, becomes subject to, and entitled to the benefit of, the laws
of the state governing the transfer of real property, fixing the
age of majority, and declaring the disability of minors.
132 Minn. 396 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
A tract of land in the White Earth Indian Reservation in the
State of Minnesota is here in dispute. It was allotted and patented
to a mixed-blood Chippewa Indian, and both parties claim under him.
The allotment was made under legislation providing that the United
States would hold the land in trust for the period of twenty-five
years, and at the expiration of that period would convey the same
to the allottee or his heirs by patent in fee discharged of such
trust and free of all charge or encumbrance, and also that, if any
conveyance should be made of the land, or if any contract should be
made touching the same, before the expiration of the trust
Page 242 U. S. 373
period, such conveyance or contract should be absolutely null
and void. 24 Stat. 388, c. 119, § 5; 25 Stat. 642, c. 24, § 3.
Afterwards, upon the allottee's application, a fee simple patent
was issued to him under a provision in the act of March 1, 1907, c.
2285, 34 Stat. 1051, 1034, declaring:
"That all restrictions as to the sale, encumbrance, or taxation
for [of] allotments within the White Earth Reservation in the State
of Minnesota, heretofore or hereafter held by adult mixed-blood
Indians, are hereby removed, and . . . such mixed bloods upon
application shall be entitled to receive a patent in fee simple for
such allotments."
Following the issue of this patent, and on dates considerably
separated, the allottee executed two deeds for the land, each to a
distinct grantee. The plaintiff in this suit claims under the
second deed, and the defendant under the first. The object of the
suit is to obtain an adjudication of these adverse claims. In the
trial court, the plaintiff prevailed, and the judgment was
affirmed. 132 Minn. 396.
In both courts, the decision was put upon the ground that the
first deed was made while the allottee was a minor, and the second
after he became an adult, and that, under the law of the state, the
deed given during his minority was disaffirmed and avoided by the
one given after he became an adult. The only federal question
presented or considered was whether the patent was conclusive of
his having attained his majority at that time. The defendant
contended that it was, but the ruling was the other way, and the
plaintiff was permitted to show the allottee's age by other
evidence. The defendant concedes that, if the patent was not
conclusive upon that point, the judgment must stand.
The validity of the patent is not assailed. On the contrary,
both parties claim under it, one as much as the other. Nor is it
questioned that the allottee received the full title, freed from
all the restrictions upon its disposal
Page 242 U. S. 374
which Congress had imposed. Thus, the question for decision is
whether the patent was to be taken as determining the allottee's
age for any purpose other than that of fixing his right to receive
the full title, freed from all the restrictions imposed by
Congress.
There is no mention of his age in the patent, and yet it must be
taken as impliedly containing a finding that he was then an adult.
This is so, because every patent for public or Indian lands carries
with it an implied affirmation or finding of every fact made a
prerequisite to its issue, and because the provision in the Act of
1907 made the majority of the allottee a prerequisite to the issue
of this patent. But such implications, although appropriately and
generally indulged in support of titles held under the government's
patents (
Steel v. Smelting Company, 106 U.
S. 447,
106 U. S. 450
et seq.) are not regarded as otherwise having any
conclusive or controlling force. They are not judgments in the
sense of the rules respecting estoppel by judgment, and we perceive
no reason for giving them any greater force or influence than has
been sanctioned by prior decisions.
The provision in the Act of 1907 under which this patent was
issued does not make for a different conclusion. Insofar as it is
applicable here, it does no more than to withdraw a particular
class of allotments from the restrictions imposed by Congress, and
to authorize the immediate issue of fee simple patents for them.
Although saying nothing on the point, it evidently intends that the
administrative officers shall be satisfied in each instance before
issuing the patent that the allotment belongs to the particular
class, and so the patent, when issued, carries with it an
implication that those officers found the allotment to be of that
class. But the provision gives no warrant for thinking that this
finding should have any greater effect or wider application than is
accorded to the finding implied from the issue of other
patents.
Page 242 U. S. 375
We conclude therefore that the administrative finding which this
patent imports was not to be taken as decisive of the allottee's
age for any purpose other than that of fixing his right to receive
the full title, freed from all the restrictions upon its disposal
which Congress had imposed.
With those restrictions entirely removed and the fee-simple
patent issued, it would seem that the situation was one in which
all questions pertaining to the disposal of the lands naturally
would fall within the scope and operation of the laws of the state.
And that Congress so intended is shown by the Act of May 8, 1906,
c. 2348, 34 Stat. 182, which provides that when an Indian allottee
is given a patent in fee for his allotment, he "shall have the
benefit of and be subject to all the laws, both civil and criminal,
of the state." Among the laws to which the allottee became subject,
and to the benefit of which he became entitled, under this
enactment were those governing the transfer of real property,
fixing the age of majority, and declaring the disability of
minors.
Judgment affirmed.