Mott v. United States

Background

The United States sued on behalf of Jackson Barnett, a full-blood Creek Indian whose land allotment and resulting royalties were subject to restrictions against sale or lease without the Secretary of the Interior’s approval. Barnett was adjudged mentally incompetent and under guardianship. Royalties from an approved oil and gas lease were paid to a representative of the Secretary and invested in United States bonds. In 1923 the Secretary, at Barnett’s written request bearing Barnett’s thumb mark, approved large gifts of the bonds to others, including Barnett’s purported wife. She transferred $150,000 in bonds to McGugin, who passed $15,000 to Marshall L. Mott; both knew the bonds came from Barnett’s trust fund and that Barnett lacked capacity. Mott refused to return the bonds or their value.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the Secretary of the Interior could lawfully approve gifts of a fund that belonged to a restricted, mentally incompetent Indian. It held that the statutory restrictions remained in force despite approval of the lease, and that the royalties and invested bonds were the Indian’s individual property protected by the law. Because Barnett was mentally incapable, the thumb-mark instrument did not reflect his act and could not bind him. The Secretary could not lawfully make gifts of the fund on his own volition, and his endorsement could not supply the necessary intent for Barnett.

Real world impact

The decision means the United States is entitled to equitable relief to recover bonds or their proceeds diverted from Barnett’s trust fund. It limits the Interior Secretary’s power to dispose of restricted Indians’ funds and requires that such funds be conserved for their benefit. Private recipients who knowingly accepted gifts from restricted trust funds may be required to return them. The ruling enforces protections for Indians under age or incompetence and affirms governmental duty to safeguard restricted property.