Bowling & Miami Investment Co. v. United States

Background

A tract of land in the Indian Territory was allotted to Pe-te-lon-o-zah, also called William Wea. A patent issued April 8, 1890, and stated the land could not be alienated for twenty-five years. After Wea died, his heirs contracted to sell the land and sued in the United States court for the Northern District of the Indian Territory; that court entered judgment sustaining the contract and the property later passed to the appellants. The United States then sued to cancel those conveyances and to set aside the earlier judgment because of the statutory restriction.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the twenty-five-year restriction applied only to Wea personally or whether it ran with the land and bound his heirs. The statute and the patent repeatedly described the prohibition as applying to "the land so allotted" and declared contracts to sell within the term "absolutely null and void." The Court concluded Congress intended the restriction to bind the land during the stated term. The Court also held the United States may enforce that restraint and that judgments entered without the Government’s involvement cannot defeat the Government’s interest.

Real world impact

The ruling means the United States can cancel sales that violate the statutory twenty-five-year bar on alienation of allotted Indian land. Heirs and later purchasers cannot rely on private suits or judgments to validate unauthorized transfers. The decision also points to the need for Secretary of the Interior approval for certain heir sales under later legislation, and leaves unauthorized transfers and their subsequent conveyances subject to cancellation.