US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

UNITED STATES V. CARPENTER, 111 U. S. 347 (1884)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 111 U. S. 347 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Carpenter, 111 U.S. 347 (1884)

United States v. Carpenter

Argued April 2, 1884

Decided April 14, 1884

111 U.S. 347


The location of land scrip upon lands reserved for Indians under the provisions of a treaty with an Indian tribe, and the issue of a patent therefor, are void.

This was a suit in equity to vacate a patent of the United States issued to one August Cluensen, on the 15th of May, 1874, embracing a tract of land in the County of Pipestone, in the State of Missouri, described as the southwesterly quarter of section one (1), in township one hundred and six (106), range forty-six (46), west of the fifth (5th) principal meridian, according to the government surveys The ground of the suit was that by treaty between the United States and the Yankton tribe of Sioux or Dacotah Indians, ratified on the 26th of February, 1859, the tract, which embraces what is known as the Red Pipestone Quarry in that county was reserved from sale or appropriation under any scrip or warrant of the government. The eighth article of the treaty stipulated that the Yankton Indians should be "secured in the free and unrestricted use" of the quarry, or "so much thereof as they have been accustomed to frequent and use for the purpose of procuring stone for pipes," and the United States agreed to cause to be surveyed and marked so much thereof as should be

"necessary and proper for that purpose, and retain the same and keep it open and free for the Indians to visit and procure stone for pipes so long as they shall desire."

Revision of Ind.Treaties 860. The bill alleged that the tract described is a part of the Red Pipestone Quarry mentioned in this article.

In the execution of their agreement, the United States caused so much of the quarry as appeared to be necessary and proper for the purposes of the reservation provided for to be surveyed and marked. A diagram and the field notes of the survey chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 111 U. S. 348

were duly returned, filed, and recorded in the General Land Office and in the office of the Surveyor General of Minnesota. In February, 1860, copies of them were transmitted by the Commissioner of the General Land Office to the Surveyor General of the United States for that state, with instructions "to lay the same down" on the map of the state in his office, and to respect them, when the public surveys reached the locality, by closing their lines upon the reservation. At this time the land included in the reservation was not surveyed, but afterwards, for some unexplained reason and in violation of the instructions, it was surveyed with other public lands in its vicinity. In July, 1872, after this survey, the commissioner directed the surveyor general to locate the reservation on the official plat in his office from the field notes and plat of the original survey and to transmit authentic copies to the general and local land offices or, if it should be impossible to locate it from these data, to direct a resurvey of the tract so that it might be located and described upon the official plats and its boundaries respected in accordance with the treaty.

In pursuance of these instructions, the surveyor general caused a resurvey of the quarry reserve and immediately marked it upon the official plats in his office. Its boundaries, as resurveyed, correspond and are substantially coincident with the lines of the original survey, and embrace the quarter section of land above described. Notwithstanding the reservation by the terms of the treaty and its survey, and appropriation to the purposes mentioned, one August Cluensen, on the 15th of July, 1871, was permitted by the land officers of the district to locate upon the quarter section a piece of land scrip issued under the authority of the laws of the United States, known as Louisiana Agricultural College scrip, and to enter the section at that office with this scrip. On the 15th of May, 1874, a patent was issued to him pursuant to his entry. All the interest which he thus acquired, if any, was subsequently transferred by divers mesne conveyances to the defendant Herbert M. Carpenter, who now claims to be the owner of the premises covered by the patent. The bill avers that all the provisions of the treaty are still in force; that the Yankton Indians have always continued chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 111 U. S. 349

to visit and procure stone from the quarry, and have always desired and still desire so to do, and that the officers and agents of the government, in all that they did in connection with the entry of the land and issuing the patent, acted without authority of law and in violation of the provisions of the treaty. The bill concludes with a prayer for a decree that the patent and the entry on which it rests may be vacated, and for further relief. To this bill the defendants demurred for want of equity. The demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed, and the case comes here on appeal.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™