McDaid v. Territory of Oklahoma Smith

Statement by Mr. Chief Justice FULLER:

This was a proceeding in mandamus brought in the district court of the first judicial district of Logan county, in the territory of Oklahoma, April 27, 1891, to compel Daniel J. McDaid, William H. Merriweather, and John H. Shanklin, as trustees of the town site of Guthrie, Oklahoma territory, appointed by the secretary of the interior under the act of May 14, 1890, (26 Stat. 109, c. 207,) entitled 'An act to provide for town-site entries of lands in what is known as 'Oklahoma,' and for other purposes,' to execute deeds for certain lots in said town site. The relators, Smith and Bradley, claimed to have entered two lots on the site, and one John Galloway claimed a prior right thereto.

On September 23, 1890, the relators applied to the town-site trustees for a deed to the lots, and on the same day Galloway also made his application therefor. The trustees heard the controversy of the two claimants, and on April 6, 1891, rendered their decision in favor of the relators, finding that they were entitled to the lots in dispute, and to a conveyance from the trustees, and they ordered that a deed be executed accordingly. Galloway having died, his heirs were substituted for him, and they filed their appeal from the decision of the commissioner of the general land office. In consequence of the appeal the trustees refused to issue the deed, and thereupon the relators instituted this suit.

The complaint alleged that the sole ground of tefusal was the appeal; that there was no authority for such appeal, and that it furnished no excuse to the trustees for their refusal. The defendant's answered, setting up that Galloway's heirs 'duly filed their appeal from the decision of this board to the commissioner of the general land office, pursuant to the instructions under act of congress under which this board was appointed, such instructions having been made by the secretary of the interior authorizing appeals by claimants to lots in cases where such claimants feel themselves aggrieved by the decisions of this board.

'And these defendants, further answering, say that there is a right of appeal given by the instructions of the secretary of the interior and recognized by this board, and that appeals in similar cases have been taken by other persons from other decisions of this board both before and after the appeal taken in this case.

'And these defendants say that they were appointed by the secretary of the interior, and that at the time of their appointment they were directed to allow appeals from their decisions where such appeals were properly prayed, and that the appeal in this case was properly prayed, and under such instructions was granted.

'And these defendants further say that the question of legal ownership as to said lot has not been definitely settled by the higher tribunals of the interior department, and that no deeds have passed for such lots, and should not pass until such appeal is disposed of; and that under such circumstances it is not for this court, by mandate or otherwise, to direct in what manner or to whom conveyances of lands or lots the title to which is in the United States should be made to individuals.'

Relators demurred to the answer, and their demurrer was sustained. Defendants then moved to dismiss the cause upon the ground that the territorial court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter. This motion was overruled, and thereupon judgment was entered ordering the trustees to execute and deliver a deed to the relators of the lots in question. An appeal was thereupon prosecuted to the supreme court of the territory, by which the judgment was affirmed, July 6, 1892. The opinion of the court and of Clark, J., dissenting, will be found in 1 Okl. 92, 30 Pac. Rep. 438. The cause was then brought to this court by writ of error.