In this ease appellants, plaintiffs below, filed a bill for injunction to rеstrain the Secretary of the Interior from proceeding to distribute an estate of an Indian to certain heirs which he had ascеrtained to be entitled thereto, under the Act of Congress of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 855 (25 USCA § 372), which provides as follows: “That when any Indian to whom an allotment оf land has been made, or may hereafter be made, dies befоre the expiration of the trust period and before the issuanсe of a fee simple patent, * * * the Secretary of the Intеrior, upon notice and hearing, under such rules as he may prescribe, shall ascertain the legal heirs of such decedent, and his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive.”
The authority of thе Secretary, on ascertainment of the legal heirs of a deceased Indian, to issue patents to such heirs, arises under section 5 of the Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388 (25 USCA § 348), where allotments of lands to cеrtain Indians are held in trust by the United States for a period of twenty-five years, at the end of which time conveyance of the lands shall be made by patent to the Indian to whom land has been allotted, “оr, in ease of his decease, of his heirs according to the lаws of the State or Territory where such land is located. * * * Provided, That the law of descent and partition in force in the State or Tеrritory where such lands are situate shall apply thereto aftеr patents therefor have been executed and deliverеd.”
It is contended by counsel for plaintiffs that the Secretary, in the thrеatened distribution, was proceeding in violation of the laws of dеscent of the state of South Dakota, where the lands in question аre situated. We think it unnecessary to enter into any discussion of either the facts or the'law relative to this ease, since the statutе vests the Secretary with power to determine the heirs, and prоvides that “his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive.” The nature of the exercise of such power by an officer of thе government was defined in the early case of Bartlett v. Kane,
No averment of fraud is made in the present case, nor is the jurisdiction of the Secretary questioned. Neither is there any provision for appeal from the decision of the Secretary giving the' court revisory power. In these circumstances it is too elementary to require citation of authority that this revisory power cannot bе invoked through extraordinary process. Whether appellants may ultimately have a remedy enforceable in the jurisdiction where the lands are located, it is unnecessary for us to determine.
The decree, dismissing the bill, is affirmed.