Bunch v. Cole

Background

A Cherokee Indian of full blood, still a ward of the United States, owned an 80‑acre allotment (40 acres homestead, 40 acres surplus). He signed three one‑year leases for cash rent of $75 each that were to take effect in later years (1916, 1917, 1918). The defendants occupied the land and sublet it, earning $890.40 in 1917 and $384.35 in 1918. The allottee sued in 1919, claiming the leases violated congressional restrictions and were void. A trial court treated the 1917 and 1918 leases as void, awarded recovery for 1918, but then the State Supreme Court reversed and denied recovery for both years under a state statute treating the leases as tenancies at will.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether Congress’s leasing restrictions for Cherokee allotments made these leases absolutely void and whether a state law could give such void instruments effect. The opinion explains Congress allowed short leases without approval (homestead up to one year, surplus up to five years) but required federal approval for longer or future-starting leases, and that any unauthorized lease was “absolutely null and void.” The Court held a State cannot validate or enforce leases that Congress has declared void; a state statute that treats those forbidden leases as tenancies and limits the owner’s compensation conflicts with federal law and is invalid.

Real world impact

The decision enforces federal control over leasing of Indian allotment land, prevents states from using local law to validate federally forbidden leases, and vindicates an allottee’s right to recover for unauthorized occupancy and profitable subletting. The Court reversed the state court’s refusal to allow recovery.