Tiger v. Western Investment Co.

Background

A full-blood Creek Indian named Marchie Tiger inherited allotment lands from his deceased brother and sisters. In July and August 1907 he sold several parcels to a land company and a realty partnership without getting approval from the Secretary of the Interior. He offered to return the purchase money, sued to cancel the deeds, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the sales. The case raised whether such sales were valid and whether Congress could require official approval.

Reasoning

The Court examined treaties and laws, including an 1833 treaty and an 1852 patent that placed Creek lands under national control, and later allotment laws. A 1902 Creek agreement barred alienation for five years unless the Secretary approved. The 1906 Act allowed heirs to sell but added a sentence in §22 making sales by full-blood heirs subject to Secretary approval. Reading §22 with other 1906 provisions and later 1908 laws, the Court concluded Congress intended continued protection and required Interior approval. The Court also held this approval requirement constitutional because Congress has long power to legislate for dependent Indian tribes and to protect their land interests even after granting citizenship.

Real world impact

As a practical result, sales of inherited allotments by full-blood Creek heirs made without Secretary approval do not give good title. Buyers who purchased without that approval may lose clear title and sellers can seek cancellation. The decision reverses the Oklahoma court and sends the case back for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

The United States Government supported the view that Secretary approval was required, and the Court relied on those protective-policy arguments. The opinion does not report a separate dissent and focuses on statutory interpretation and Congress’s authority.