153 F.2d 162 | 10th Cir. | 1946
The United States brought this action against Planson to recover a penalty of $1,200 under 25 U.S.C.A. § 179. That Act provides that every person who drives or otherwise conveys any stock of horses, mules, or cattle, to range and feed on any land belonging to any Indian or Indian Tribe, without the consent of such Tribe, is liable to a penalty of $1 for each animal of such stock. The complaint alleged that on March 3, 1943, Hanson drove 1200 head of sheep to range and feed on lands belonging to the Uintah and White River Tribes of Ute Indians.
From a judgment in favor of the United States, Hanson has appealed.
At a pretrial conference, the trespass was admitted and it was agreed that the sole issue was whether or not the lands belonged to any Indian or Indian Tribe.
The lands in question were a part of an area in the Uintah Valley, in Utah, set apart by an order of President Lincoln in 1861, without treaty or agreement with any Indian Tribe, as a reservation for Indians who might subsequently occupy such area. By the Act of May 5, 1864,
A part of the unallotted lands in such area restored to the public domain was withdrawn from entry and sale by an Executive Order dated July 14, 1905, and included within the Uintah National Forest. By the Act of February 13, 1931,
Approximately 220,000 acres of the lands restored to the public domain 'by the Act of May 27, 1902, remain undisposed of. Embraced therein are the lands upon which the trespass was committed. We think it clear that, while the legal title passed to the United States and the lands were subject to entry and sale, the beneficial title remained in the Indians and the United States held the lands as trustee for the Indians. We see no distinction between the instant case and Ash Sheep Company v. United States, 252 U.S. 159, 40 S.Ct. 241, 64 L.Ed. 507. The only difference is that in that case the trust relationship was created by an agreement amended and ratified by an Act of Congress. Here, it was created by Act of Congress.
We, therefore, conclude that the lands were Indian lands and that the judgment below should be affirmed.
13 Stat. 63.
32 Stat. 245, 263, 264.
32 Stat. 982, 998.
33 Stat. 189, 207.
33 Stat. 1048, 1069.
46 Stat. 1092.
48 Stat. 1269, 1273, 43 U.S.C.A. § 315j.