Percy Hood and Grace Hood, His Wife v. United States

LEMMON, Before FEE HAMLEY, Judges. Circuit FEE, JAMES Judge. ALGER Circuit brought The Hoods Superior suit in a Washington Court in the State of quiet the United States to title1 to having jurisdiction to such a or in of the United State court 1. Consent 2410(a), matter, quiet found in 28 U.S.C.A. of the * suit title to provides personal property real or party “may to a civil be named which the United States has or claims a mortgage or suit lien.” formerly option within the boundaries of the the nonpayment of forfeiture in the event of Reservation, Lummi Indian provided but which that the deed indubitably are now owned them should be retained in escrow the Com- simple fee missioner of Indian Affairs and delivered purchaser upon payment claimed a lien.2 was The cause in full. gov by removed to ernment, deposited the federal court the The deed in escrow was exe- twenty-three where a fore counterclaim for cuted all of the adult against January 16, closure of the lien the was filed heirs before Hoods. The trial lands court held the 18, 1926, On March an Act was subject were for to lien the construction by Congress authorizing appropria- together costs, operation main and tion for the construction of dikes re- charges, tenance of dikes built 4,000 claim some acres of land in and Congress 4,000 Act of to reclaim some adjacent to the Lummi Reserva- Indian adjacent acres of land in the and tion.4 Some of the land Indian land was Reservation. by private and some was owned individ- questions provided There are uals. two involved. The Act that the cost First, Congress project equi- possess did of would be intend to and the distributed tably among power impose the lands lands in Indian owner- a lien the the charges ship private Second, here involved? operation and for those might project. and which be maintenance a lien benefited the imposed upon A lien the lands? was all Indian land pro share, and rata the existence following appear the facts from any patent of the lien was to be recited in Mary patented record. The lands were provided issued therefor. It was Yah-Him-A-Loo, simple, fee money expended no should be for con- against restrictions alienation in 1884. struction on account of lands regulations, Mr. Pursuant to statute and Dickens, Superintendent private ownership repayment until con- Reserva- tracts were executed the owners of tion, 10, 1925, on executed November private benefited, by lands of memorandum of sale these lands imposed liens would be thereon also. Hoods, heirship property as original patentee. The deed in accordance with after the decease twenty- Dickens, guardian time, sale contract was executed At the same as Mary three heirs of by Yah-Him-A-Loo and In- of minor Indian heirs and the adult Superintendent, Dick- heirs, Walter F. Hoods dian executed a deed to the ens, legal guardian Superin- Dickens, upon payment four named for minors, tendent, price $2,515 purchase on and was on the November agreement approved by $10,100. provided terior, by Assistant, “upon payment and in full then his about August covering duly case a deed executed Two deeds in such approved the individual interests of minors said heirs Interior, Superintendent also executed shall Percy Secretary. Hood and Grace delivered to said conveying given Hood, wife, copy land to Hood then said con- H. his signed by Superintendent pursuant law.” tract their heirs them gave bearing approval Secretary, provisions The other par- “any initially brought included other action under section 2410 2. This quiet against sought plaintiff title to of this title the United ties them, the trial court State court lands. As be removed the the govern- United States to the the asserted found Only foundation void. United States for without ment district and divi- appeal. pending.” sion in which the action Hoods 1'J, 1926, removal was found in 4. Act of March Authorization 44 Stat. provides plaintiffs all found other than the escrow. were retained all the deeds but Hoods to have their sev- paid entitled titles to by the executed payment required. contracts this feature was No lien In- private upon any parcels lands benefited.5 owners claimed of the several completed stead, $3,000. the construction amounted to A similar case had Secretary August 19, 1930, of originally by and on been commenced certain pursuant promulgated, Court, Interior landowners District federal March 4 Act of by opinion of the Section but was later dismissed our reciting “public that he Long, notice” Cir., his in Wells v. 162 F.2d 842. project distributing Thereupon, of the the total cost suit was com instant benefited, among accordance in in the lands menced re the state court and was part government by of the notice pursuant made a with a schedule moved to 28 (1949). by 25 C.F.R. reference. § U.S.C.A. 1444. If it now be held that § juris included lands there were In schedule this this cause must be dismissed on had who grounds, owners a number white dictional the enactment will be “repayment pro- signed meaningless.6 practical purposes contract” not for all It notable that law. is vided The cardinal concern of the Unit the Hoods Interior listed is all in ed States that cases which agents Thereafter, owmers. as white government interests of are involved attempt- Interior may in fora. in be tried federal Such all contracts from to obtain ed vitally may in terests be enmeshed a case among others, signed. Hoods, The not negligible pecuniary is of value. signed “repayment con- have never judicial power of the federal courts The tract.” any controversy extends to which the party.7 is a are caused United States There the confusion Because of public to the publication notice other statutes accord right charges, Hoods States the remove certain cases the schedule regard holding ownership, option its sole without land in white at others controversy.8 apparently against im- If amount then the whom a lien was gov right denied, terms, suit here posed of removal is under its commenced forced United States. ernment will be clear title foreclose $3,000 federal of a value less than the state The cause was removed trial, courts, independent court After an suit first Court. unless is District jurisdiction court, part provided for here- fer on a federal 5. “No of the sum predicated merely expended jurisdiction for construction cannot be in shall be private upon owner- lands in the fact that the United account of repayment appropriate party, [pur ship con- “unless United States until statute] with the terms of suant to the removal tract accordance invokes [the federal] Secre- and in form court.” Act prop- Long, Cir., tary 162 F.2d Interior shall Wells 844. erly Richards, the landowners whose See Venable v. executed project.” may benefited lands be L.Ed. 44 Stat. Act March 7. United States Constitution, Ill, art. case, recognized Court In the this Wells cl. principle the mere that existence in itself §§ statute does not con- 1442a. a consent property filed in the that property federal court. fact and that trust right legislate United States did remove and affirm- has a sought atively purpose protecting to foreclose these liens un- those who yet conclusively able fully independent counterclaim establishes to assume a though interest status property, here.9 The to their even rights property may individual remove cannot be denied. im- paired. jurisdiction. trial We We do asserted merits examine the of, pass correct, upon, questions. hold this re- conclusion since the plain.10 moval statute seems Hoods, position taken prede- urged Indian lien in first there is no existence It is simple held fee in favor of the of the Hoods these lands cessors up- Congress, restraint to a virtue of Act to these approval grounds. alienation, sustained several in that convey- Congress applied lien to Interior ownership.12 con- required. demon is further It Indian ance was fee a restricted was not strable real the Hoods tended already be act to such even patent11 had issued when the by any that, Furthermore, act con- stand dians, allotment came if the law. ard, parcel the of templated reservation a title to this that special patent, procedure prescribed a be included Hoods before the would required Thus therein. had been the lien would of the to establish clause nothing say procedure to- initiated, is of made that trustee is the contention perfect of methods impose additional burdens it. There are three not to bound hand, First, establishing the- Upon upon facts. other the estate. agents charged no there is with the administration- claims that relating construing restricted between in the statutes difference substantial reasoning is consti- United 1444] on a District Court [28 diction 9. The interpretation reason that 28 U.S.C.A. tutional for the §§ defendant, pro- persuasive: and for its a “28 U.S. States is tection determination of and 2410 seems complete immunity a and in the interest of waives §C.A. litigation Congress in an action foreclose States United a lien * * * only may provide upon property, upon for removal of not the- controversy affects the United States- that claims which ** * immunity, other even but defendants Such to have lien. they though however, granted in could be sued alone is under the condition * * Commentary- gives the United the federal court.” Moore’s States para- Code, unqualified option remove on United States Judicial an page graph 0.003(40), court. It follows action that the immunity is waived conditional pat- between distinction a “trust upon right removal, and should patent fee” ent” and a “restricted dis- is right thwarted, withheld that Cohen, Handbook cussed of Federal' immunity seem follow that the would is withdrawn. It pp. 109-110, Law, (United- 206-207 follows, therefore, that Department Interior, of the Office- upon no is basis there can remand the case 1941). Solicitor, objection over the the United States.” Vincent of R. v. P. portion providing statute D.C., F.Supp. 102, Matthews against the creation of liens lands in In- that, if It be noted 105. court must the trial ownership dian is as follows: “The- jurisdiction under had no the re- charge properly construction assessable- statute, cloud moval title on against Indian lands shall be reim- in white the other lands all * * bursed such rules and Apparently, par- still remain. would all regulations as the agree correctly these cases were ties de- may prescribe, and terior there is here- cided, appeal. has since there been no created lien all such holding there is Our any pat- which lien shall be recited in these titles. clears ent therefor issued Act of grant juris- 10. “This broader of removal March Stat. equitable trine of Indians had and restricted lands into trust long recognized conversion came theory, a contract effect.14 In virtue of if two thereto, convey private parties title had entered into a con- signed agent, appropriate removed purchase tract for sale government jurisdiction proper the land from except form died, and both the executor enforcing the purpose the estate of have the vendor would rescinding promises paid or of received of the vendee amount that had been purchase price default. would have possessed obligation against universally held that payment the estate of the vendee for of an course of conduct of the officers the balance. The heirs at law of the agency States, of the United vendee, hand, other would have re enforce laws chosen to construe possession taken of the real long lating subject, particular if to a conveyed and been in fee soon seized as given great weight continued, bewill legal passed. title This situation interpreting adminis the statutes same, though remedy even binding ter, of law. force and will specific might performance lie on either the doctrine administra This is called given by hand or where the Department of tive construction.13 contract the vendor avoid recognized long Interior has contract for breach of at a sub- condition government, made when sale sequent expressly date. It was stated pur law, pursuance confers in the contract that the equitable premises chaser Interior, option, upon at his default of in extent a sale to the same might payment purchase price, holding And, if all the fee. dividual rescind the transaction take back and purchaser upon part of the conditions the title lands for the these benefit performed the ap done and have been to be thereupon the Indian and heirs would conveyed is without technical required pay have been the Hoods approve, required proval of the officer percentage purchase a certain conveys title and transaction still price already paid which had been in. appropriate official thereafter time perform ac clerical amendment (cid:127)will Thus, case, in the instant cording prescribed formula. to the United States ceased be trustee legal

Second, execution the real because the bare title to sale, the familiar doc- contract the Indian heirs and became trustee -of the for “ * * * * * practice, que con administrative as trust] 13. to the latter. cestui unchallenged, generally -will and sistent circumstances has the seller except very cogent certainly lien, tor be overturned ‘whieh not vendor’s scope withholding conveyance.’ impaired by the command if the reasons Norwegian equitable and doubtful.” indefinite estate of vendee is States, Nitrogen alienable, Products Co. v. United and descendible devisable 315, 350, 294, S.Ct. 77 L. 53 U.S. real 288 like manner as estate held Hawkins, legal also United States v. Leslie See Ed. 796. Lewis v. 23 title.” Wall. 397, 416, 383, 119, 76 S.Ct. 125, 350 U.S. Salt 90 U.S. 23 L.Ed. 113. * * * Zueca, 441; United States v. L.Ed. the doctrine “This is founded 96, 671, 91, principle, equity, L.Ed. S.Ct. U.S. courts of regarding substance and not * * *, mere form contracts con early Supreme Court stated that 14. The things agreed sider directed to be on a land sale of the doctrine effect having actually performed.” done, as the vendor “held the was contract 563, Beverly, Peter Pet. legal [the vendee] as trustee title 9 L.Ed. See also * * * [the vendee] was and Equitable Stone, by Contract, Conversion * * * [the vendor] as to trustee * * * Law Review 13 Columbia 369. The money. doc purchase ven [the equitable widely que trine of conversion is cestui trust to the was dee] recognized applied. and [the vendor was .former proceeds proper their steps proper of sale in behalf. to obtain a deed in States, by The United con- virtue of this form as to the minor interests tract, was bare thereafter promised trustee heirs. deed to obtain a legal Hoods, approved by title of lands for these In- equitable who Upon owners. terior.15 part, Hoods- their given promised Indians had equity, pay price. a valid deed purchase the full only delivery after which approval. Only awaited Superintendent obtained the formal after default signatures of all the adult heirs States, both as trustee then of January executed the document on legal equitable titles, avoid could Thereupon, proceeded he The land therefore transaction. was appointed guardian himself four sign- not in Indian after the minor Superior process Indian heirs ing convey of the contract on Novem- Washing Court of the State of ber did not intend ton, and, guardian pursuant impose lien automatic the contract with the Hoods and order private ownership held in on March court, the state con executed deeds impose and could not lien veying the heirs interests of the minor the title after that date. property. proceeding, to this In this Third, contemporaneous construc- explained price purchase was placed upon contract,

tion deed lump only was a pro sum and share rata 18, 1926, proves the Act of March August would be due the On minors. passage equitable title before the 10, 1926, pursuant contract, the to the legal question stamped approved contract itself was vested in the Hoods on November the officeof the of the Interior. Acting The deeds were agents Indeed, the placed the Interior and in this instance did the contract construe escrow, strictly according provi having passed of sale as the title. agreement. pur sions of the When the re- asmuch as were burdened with deeds, price paid full, chase enforcing sponsibility of the laws and were delivered to the Hoods and recorded regulations relating conveyance, to this approval Secretary with the of the effectively acts construe the con- the Interior them. be noted It will convincing quite and tract char- during period there whole was acter. attempt by Secretary no the In of the Superintendent of the Indian Superintendent any agent terior or the gov- employee agency, government who is an of the attempt of the to to condi fully empowered ernment and who was passing by accept tion the of title the regulations by the laws and to do so then by provided ance of the lien the stat strictly, force, which were followed 18, ute. Inasmuch as of March the Act By Hoods. sold this land to the virtue 1926, provision patent contains a that a sale, contract of of that written to an Indian shall a contain notation of government promised to obtain a deed imposition lien,16 it seems (cid:127) the adult heirs and to agents from take attorneys clear and provided of sale provided 15. The memorandum inbefore for shall be retained payment part: “That full in escrow the Commissioner of In- Percy Hood and Grace H. Hood said dian until all Affairs the notes and inter- ** * duly executed said deed est before mentioned shall have been Mary Xah-Him-A-Loo, ap- paid, heirs Percy when it shall be delivered to Secretary Interior, proved Hood, wife, Hood and Grace H. his as- Percy to said delivered Hood provided.” shall be and Grace hereinbefore * * * conveying Hood H. pursu- charge properly to them and their heirs said 16. “The construction as- It is to law. further un- ant derstood sessable the Indian lands shall' agreed that the deed here- reimbursed to the Treasurer of the they Pickering Lomax, had government believe the case at bar. In v. did not 310, 716, 860, deeds 145 U.S. 36 L.Ed. power either the S.Ct. condition to Pickering, with and in Lomax approval v. U.S. conduct, 416, 418, By S.Ct. 43 L.Ed. other such a burden. agents patented Robinson, have lands were Indian, to one indicated pres restricting they was clause believe this title that ently convey permission of the stat in virtue without encumbered Robinson, utory shows the President. provision. The evidence The heir of attempted consistently 1858, conveyed deed dated to Horton. “repayment from This contract” deed was recorded obtain without consistently approval by has been and that this President. Horton died Hoods conveyed believed Hoods his because the administrator Baer. refused convey- im from the There were obtained no benefit several intermediate contemporaneous con provement. Aquila ances of the title down a deed Pickering. therefore, January struction, latter, H. was that title procured finally upon approval the contract the execution Presi- Hoods, subject to agent original However, and the dent of the deed. subsequent conveyed of default heir of Robinson the condition the same again property, by deed, Hoods.17 McClure 22, 1870, purported November and this no probable here conveyance inadvertently approved was necessity rely upon the doctrine February 24, the President on approval of make “relation back” to Supreme Court of the United States August Interior of approval president held that “the as of date effective related back to the execution of the deed deed, November memorandum sale time,” and validated it from that according since, thesis Horton, grantee, that the first took title above, would United States out set gave since the record of the deed if failed the contract have broken notice, vendee, and therefore the second Secretary of approval have the McClure, purchaser fide not a bona pur- deed when Interior very result, A value. like do paid. price But the cases chase Lykins situation, difficult was reached in under circum- this doctrine refer McGrath, much more difficult S.Ct. which are stances involving apply in 46 L.Ed. 485.18 the transaction Other cases which those than reg- rules and its interpretation States under administrative sistent contention ulations more recent is here- prescribo, statute be can- terior how the should construed against lands, a lien all such by created not stand.” in any patent lien shall be recited which imposing purpose 18. was of “What the a the reimburse- to therefor, prior issued upon Indian’s power restriction the of chargeable amount of the total ment to him conveyance? passed Title by the against 18, of March such lands.” Act and but for the patent, restriction he 212. 1926, 211, Stat. had power would have the full of aliena- government bound any the same as holder of only Not the tion a fee- Secretary the of of title. The restriction approval simple the the was placed the before notice of in order upon Interior to the deed his alienation that he wronged lien in accordance with be of not imposition any should sale that might act administrative of includ- desire to make; but he that the con- Act, ing in white owner- should property, ample; this when be sideration that he invalid because there was an in fact it, w-as should receive ship, subject thereby previous conveyance to reverse should be attempt to no un- interpretation con- qualifications. administrative reasonable conditions prevent See United was not to a temporaneous construction. sale or convey- guard against 383, ance, only States v. Leslie Salt 850 U.S. but imposi- “Against 424: 396, 76 S.Ct. tion therein. When Secretary ap- longstanding Treasury’s prior and con- proved conveyance it was a deter- set below.19 same doctrine are out lien. Some definite act of the adminis- question agents, declaring Here there is no of innocent trative the intention agents parties place charge third involved. The of specific amount government particular the by parcel, necessary.20 could have been advised Since given years their own records that land had the notice was more than two Congress already conveyed delivery deed, been before after of lien could no attempted place thereby. a lien it. be created equitable We seen abundantly It is clear also At contract November agents In passage date of the of the Act Congress by terior violated the Act of March nor neither failing repayment to obtain contracts department the administrative could im- from private the owners of lands benefit pose contract, on the which was a burden improvement ed ex before the binding upon States from the United penditure any money appro legal signing. date of The title held priation for the construction of these only the impressed have been United could dikes.21 There was thus no lien for these with the lien im- lands, of these and the statutory provements if formula had in Interior was ill when he advised express stipulation been or if an followed cluded such lands in the schedule of right the contract or deed reserved charges allocating pro con rata cost of impose There was future liens. struction. This instrument constitutes statutory no reservation. for- Hoods, a cloud on the title of the followed. mula was not they Ap are entitled to have removed. propriate decree therefor. should enter agents be It must said that the foregoing discussion also shows attempt not did that the record is founda- devoid specific piece impose lien this this imposition tion whatsoever for publication of until the any charge operation or maintenance specifying property as one notice upon the Hoods. August, encumbrance long only after deed decree will be modified duly among including the Interior lands of the Hoods ownership, were in the Hoods and those in delivered complete possession white which cannot subjected the land. Of to lien impose course, itself did the statute construction maintenance. * * purposes respective mination that benefits imposed charge had been the fully Stat. properly restriction “The construction * * being against All this *. satisfied assessable justice requires accomplished, conveyance lands shall be reimbursed the Treas- * * upheld, ury hereby to that should and there is creat- attaches the relation ed a the doctrine lien all such end approval conveyance makes 44 Stat. operative date of the lat provides that, regard Lykins McGrath, 184 ter.” 171-172, privately is, owned other than S.Ct. 451. 22 part pro- “no of the sum Mining Royalty & Commerce 19. Hallam v. expended vided for shall be 10S, 107; Cir., 49 F.2d Anchor 10 any for construction on account of lands Gray, Cir., 8 F. 277. 257 See 169 v. Oil Co. private ownership appropriate in until an O’Hern, Okl. v. 67 Co. Scioto Oil repayment contract in accordance with P. 483. ap- the terms this Act in form proved authorized directed the 20. The Act of the Interior properly “to the Interior declare been shall have executed project may public the cost of the notice landowners whose lands be benefited equitable project.” assessed share to be 18, 192G, of March in accordance with 44 benefited Stat. Judge (dissent- Judge considering LEMMON, Healy Circuit was there ing). 901-906, predecessor §§ 2410, supra. continued: § He opinion dissent, I I because am of gives jurisdiction already noted, “As lacked that the Court below the act subject-matter of the suit. United over the States alone the of removal to the federal court. Superior complaint, ñled in the Unless the United invokes States County in the State Court for Whatcom jurisdiction court, it has of that Washington, “The action asserts that jurisdic- here, not done so federal Title is authorized Section merely predicated tion can not be [Annotated]”. United States Code the fact that is a pertinent of § subsection party.” reads as follows: U.S.C.A., The former pre- “(a) Under the conditions supra, opinion, quoted Judge Healy’s in and section in this section scribed provided part “any suit such protection this title for the brought against United States States, United of the United any may State court be removed may party in States be named United dis- States to United States district civil or suit trict in which the including court, District Court pending.” suit Alaska, Territory inor for the any having jurisdiction that, by State court I do not think this dic- obiter quiet subject matter, Judge that, tum, Healy say intended to mort- jurisdictional to or if the more amount of foreclosure of per- gage $3,000 real or lacking or other lien than brought in the suit on which the court, sonal in the State some mortgage or juridical legerdemain has claims a [Emphasis jurisdic- Federal supplied.] lien.” other simple tion could be conferred having device of the case transferred to plain- appellants, who were though Court, the Federal even if the 2410(a) below, is concede that § tiffs merely brought against originally suit had statute, a “consent” the United States in the Federal instead “jurisdiction therefore court, of the State the United Dis- independently of must found matter jurisdic- trict Court would have lacked concession, support In it”. appellants required tion because of lack Cir., Long, 9 Wells cite Judge Healy amount. If intended so Judge 162 F.2d hold, however, go along I cannot Healy said: Paragraph 4, such a view. See infra.1 purpose im- of the statute “The appellants 3. The concede “All merely mediately involved of the asserted liens were less than the sovereign immunity from suit waive $3,000.00 required minimum for initial cases, types of in certain jurisdiction; federal the action therefore jurisdiction on to hear courts confer and determine [Emphasis in the state court.” filed cases in the ordi- supplied.] nary presupposes that the sense. pend- appellants, which such suit however, court ing seem to brought jurisdictional has think that some grounds independent magic removal to thereof the Federal [Emphasis Court; supplied.] continue: the statute.” tion, etc., States, 1937, lucid statement Cir., the concise and v. United See Judge 903, 908; Uederle in Haldeman v. 240 F.2d of Chief and Aetna Insurance States, D.C.Mich.1950, Chicago Co., 93 F. Co. v. R. I. Cir., & P. R. 10 opin 890; Supp. 889, 1956, 584, the well-reasoned 229 F.2d Judge llamley in Seattle Associa- ion 532 “However due service ed after States claimed held

process appellee removed it to automatic lien under the Act because below, ownership’ under au- the District Court the lands were in ‘Indian thority given by date,” U.S.C.[A. §] 28 of record at etc. its effective ‘any [Emphasis 1444, provides supplied.] brought, 2410 under section complaint, appellants In their al- [by removed the United States to lege that the land was sold to them district court United States 10, 1925, by November es- of an means division in which district and deed, approved by crow Ed- John H. pending].” the action is wards, Assistant Paragraph For the reasons stated terior, August long 10, after 1926— 2, supra, agree view. I with this do not 211, 44 enactment of so- Stat. purely my opinion, supra, In “Diking § Act”, called of March statute, does simply a removal Gray, Inc., 1939, In Clark v. Paul juris- independently confer of itself 583, 589, 744, 748, L.Ed. S.Ct. regard- diction Court the District (later Mr. Justice Jus- Mr. Chief jurisdictional more less of amount tice) Stone said: $3,000, required 28 U.S.C.A. than “It is a familiar when rule that makes 1331. I do not think that it plaintiffs separate several assert the case difference at whose instance single and suit, juris- distinct demands in a removed to the Federal Court: the amount involved in each present. dictional must be amount separate controversy must controversy in the 5. The amounts in requisite amount to be within the suit in the various claims embodied originally court, of the district brought State in the and that those amounts cannot be jurisdic- added meet the cannot be together jurisdic- satisfy added requirements, claims tional because ” requirements. tional ] cited. [Cases appel- sufficiently related. are not point out: lants themselves seen, weAs demands allegations com- plaintiffs Hood “Those and “non-Hood” are de- bearing cidedly “separate matter plaint distinct”, on the em- alleged phasized were as- appellants’ which the own brief.2 plied.] veyance passage allotted dian) averred, plaintiffs tion allegations state of of them. serted appellants, “As to ^[******] complaint lands, ‘ownership’ tracts and the titles non-Hood to individual into clouded appellants’ But as [io] the Act. which had distinctive to ‘private’ charged come Hoods. were common originally reserva- plaintiffs, it was long prior [Emphasis sup- by mesne con- Lummis, those of the several the nature (and Although all the land the Unit- anciently however, non-In- were all type 269-270; 1248, he said: Healy strict construction to be tween citizens of versy courts neither be statute calls amount. tion.” Mr. Justice Stone “From the involving of statute. Again, value v. was more than a nor [Emphasis 54 S.Ct. Ratta, 1934, of the matter removed to we find brought federal beginning In the its supplied.] different another questions, construc- strict in the federal emphasizing leading 292 U.S. them, policy given in contro- suits be- specified statement states, unless could case to this L.Ed. etc., 604; Drilling, Blasting, 349 U.S. 75 S.Ct. and Aetna Rock See Company Chicago Hanger Co., Cir., Insurance v. R. I. & P. & Mason page denied, supra, R. F.2d at certiorari F.2d following Mr. Justice Black used the said Nor can it language: juris- gives District Court in That section is case. this diction deciding is no “Before part as follows: jurisdiction, district court must way complaint look allotments. “1353. Indian original drawn to see if it is drawn so shall courts right any jurisdiction in- claim a under to recover civil volving any person, Constitution and laws of the United party part or States. For extent ‘the Indian blood to that whole or in brings descent, any of land suit is master to de- allotment rely upon, any cide what will law he under * * * treaty.” he whether does determine bring arising will under” a “suit claiming appellants here [Constitution laws] by allotment, virtue but Indian by States his dec- United ownership” “private the land laration or bill.’ [Case cited.]” by acquired “bid” question, means of a [Emphasis supplied.] Superintend- them, accepted by the from by Agency, reasons, a deed For the I ent of the Indian above believe that jurisdiction District lacked Court appellee claims that over the the suit. The terior. matter of ownership, but con- case should to the Court be remanded tract was in Indian “holding below, appellants are with dismiss the cedes that instructions ownership’ ”. ‘white title to action. [the] is, accordingly, no claim here There any person part “in whole or land”. Neither blood to allotment of

party here invokes § opinion majority Finally, as- United serts that “The fact affirmatively remove and did sought counter- foreclose conclusively BLISS, Petitioner, inter-

claim establishes Katharine B. here.”

est v. INTERNAL COMMISSIONER OF REV- contention, difficulty Respondent. ENUE, jurisdiction however, aof is that No. Docket 24768. of this kind Federal court in a case complaint, and not determined Appeals Court of subsequent pleadings. Second Circuit. City Phoenix, In Mosher v. Argued Feb. 29, 30, 77 L.Ed. 287 U.S. 53 S.Ct. 18, 1958. Decided June Hughes said: Mr. Chief Justice diversity of citizen- “There is no depends upon ship, presentation the bills com- ques- plaint federal of a substantial determin- is thus

tion. Jurisdiction allegations the bills

ed way facts turn and not of the merits.” out or decision [Emphasis supplied.] Hood, 1946, Again, 327 U.S. in Bell 90 L.Ed. 66 S.Ct. notes Hoods After the against quieted eral price, lands the asserted purchase balance of government. lien of Foreclosure out delivered described were above deeds the Hoods on or about Hoods on escrow to the counterclaim of the de- April, 1928. month appeal creed. This followed. acreage, great De- deal of As to obey threshold, Interior did partment of the At the this Court was injunction specific question juris confronted with the money expended reargument re- until A should diction. no the case

Case Details

Case Name: Percy Hood and Grace Hood, His Wife v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 17, 1958

Citation: 256 F.2d 522

Docket Number: 15267

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.