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

BAILESS V. PAUKUNE, 344 U. S. 171 (1952)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 344 U. S. 171 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Bailess v. Paukune, 344 U.S. 171 (1952)

Bailess v. Paukune

No. 242

Submitted November 10, 1952

Decided Dec. 8, 1952

344 U.S. 171



Under the General Allotment Act of February 8, 1887, a trust patent to land in Oklahoma was issued to an Apache Indian. He died, leaving a will devising an undivided interest in the allotment to his widow. No fee patent had been issued, and the trust period had not expired.

Held: if the widow is not an Indian, her interest is subject to state taxation. Pp. 344 U. S. 171-173.

206 Okla. 527, 244 P.2d 1137, reversed and remanded.

Respondent sued in an Oklahoma state court to enjoin state taxation of her undivided interest in a trust patent for land issued to her deceased Indian husband. Without determining whether the widow was an Indian, the trial court held that the interest was not taxable, and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed. 206 Okla. 527, 244 P.2d 1137. This Court granted certiorari. 344 U.S. 812. Reversed and remanded, p. 344 U. S. 173.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1901, an Apache Indian, Paukune, was issued a trust patent to land in Caddo County, Oklahoma. This allotment was made under the General Allotment Act of February chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 344 U. S. 172

8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, 389. [Footnote 1] Paukune died testate in 1919, leaving a wife Juana and a son Jose. By his will, he devised an undivided one-hird interest in the allotment to his widow and an undivided two-hirds interest to his son. No fee patent to the land has issued to Paukune, to his widow, or to the son. The trust period of twenty-ive years has, from time to time, been extended. In other words, the United States still holds the land in trust for Paukune and his heirs.

In 1947, Juana's undivided one-hird interest was assessed for ad valorem taxes in the amount of $21.33, and was advertised for sale for failure to pay. She thereupon instituted this suit in the Oklahoma courts to enjoin the sale and any further levy of ad valorem taxes on the theory that the land was exempt from state taxation. The petitioners answered, alleging that Juana was a non-ndian, and therefore not exempt from the taxes. The chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 344 U. S. 173

trial court, without determining whether the widow was an Indian, held her interest nontaxable by the state, and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed, 244 P.2d 1137, saying it mattered not under federal law whether the widow was Indian or non-ndian. The case is here on certiorari.

Levindale Lead & Zinc Mining Co. v. Coleman, 241 U. S. 432, dealt with restrictions on alienation attached to land under the Osage Indian Allotment Act of June 28, 1906, 34 Stat. 539. The Court held that the policy of that Act did not embrace person who were not Indians, since the Congress sought to protect only those toward whom it owed the duties of a guardian. The same answer must be given here. If Juana is not an Indian, the United States has no interest of hers in the land to protect. [Footnote 2] True, the United States holds the legal title to the land. But nothing in the Act prevents the devolution of the quitable interest to the widow. If she is not within the class whom Congress sought to protect, the trust is a dry and passive one; there remains only a ministerial act for the trustee to perform, namely the issuance of a fee patent to the cestui.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

[Footnote 1]

Section 5 of the Act provides in part as follows:

"That, upon the approval of the allotments provided for in this act by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall cause patents to issue therefor in the name of the allottees, which patents shall be of the legal effect, and declare that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted, for the period of twenty-ive years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made, or, in case of his decease, of his heirs according to the laws of the State or Territory where such land is located, and that, at the expiration of said period, the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian, or his heirs as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever: Provided, That the President of the United States may, in any case in his discretion, extend the period. And if any conveyance shall be made of the lands set apart and allotted as herein provided, or any contract made touching the same, before the expiration of the time above mentioned, such conveyance or contract shall be absolutely null and void: Provided, That the law of descent and partition in force in the State or Territory where such lands are situate shall apply thereto after patents therefor have been executed and delivered, except as herein otherwise provided. . . ."

[Footnote 2]

And see Mixon v. Littleton, 265 F.6d 3; Unkle v. Wills, 281 F. 29, 35.

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 |™