Doe Ex Dem. Mann v. Wilson

Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court. By the treaty of October 27, 1832, made by the United States, through commissioners, with the Pottawatomie tribe of Indians of the State of Indiana and Michigan Territory, said .nation ceded to the United States their title and interest in and to their lands in the States of Indiana and Illinois, and the Michigan Territory, south of Grand river. Many, reservations were' made in favor of Indian villagers jointly, and to individual Pottawatomies. The reservations are by sections, amounting probably to a hundred, lying in various parts of the ceded country: As to" these, the Indian. *462 title remained a» it stood before the treaty was made; and to complete the title to the reserved lands, the' United States agreed that they would issue patents to the respective owners. One of these reservees was the chief, Pet-chi-co, to whom was reserved two sections. The treaty also provides, that “the foregoing reservations shall be selected under the direction of the President of the United States, after the land shall have been surveyed, and the boundaries shall correspond with the public surveys.” In February, 1838, by a deed in fee simple, Pet-chi-co conveyed to Alexis Coquillard and David H. Colerick, of the State of Indiana, “ all those two sections of land lying in the State aforesaid, in the region of country or territory ceded by the treaty of 27th October, 1832.” The grantor covenants that he is lawful owner of the lands; hath good right and lawful authority to sell and convey the same. And he furthermore warrants the title against himself and his heirs. Under this deed, the defendant holds possession. The lessors of the plaintiff took a deed from Pet-chi-co’s heirs, dated in 1855, on the assumption that their ancestor’s deed was void; he having died in 1833, before the lands were surveyed, or the reserved sections selected. And on the trial below, the court was asked to instruct the jury, “ that Pet-chi-co held no interest under the treaty in the lands in question, up to the time of his death, that was assignable; he having died before the location of the land, and before the patents issued.” . This instruction the court refused to give; but, on the contrary, charged the jury, that “The description of the land in the deeds from Pet-chi-co to Coquillard and Colerick, from Colerick to Coquillard, and from Coquillard to Wilson, are sufficient to identify the land thereby intended to be conveyed as the same two sections of land which are in controversy in this suit, and which are described in the patents, which have been read in evidence.” It is assumed that the lands embraced by the patents to Pet-chi-co, made in 1887, do not lie within the section of country ceded by the treaty of 27th October, 1832; and therefore the *463 court was asked to instruct the jury that the defendants cannot claim nor. hold the land as assignees of Pet-chi-co, by virtue of the treaty. The demand for such instruction' was also refused. There is no evidence in the record showing where the land granted .by the patents lies, except that which is furnished by the patents themselves. They.recite the stipulation in the treaty in Pet-chi-co’s behalf; that the selections for him, of sections nine and ten, had been made, “ as being the sections to which the said Pet-chi-co is entitled,” under the treaty. The-recitals in the patents conclude all controversy on this point. The only question presented by the record that we feel ourselves called on to decide is, whether Pet-chi-co’s deed of February, 1833, vested his title in Coquillard and Colerick. ■ The Pottawatomie nation was the owner of the possessory right of the country ceded, and all the subjects of the nation were joint owners of it. The réservees took by the treaty, directly from the nation, the Indian title; and this was the right to occupy, use, and enjoy the lands, in common with the United States, until partition was made, iu the manner prescribed. The treaty itself converted the reserved sections into individual property. The Indians as a nation reserved no interest in the territory ceded; but as a part of the consideration for the cession, certain individuals of the nation had conferred on them portions of the land, to which the United States title was either added or promised to be added; and it matters not which, for the purposes of this controversy for possession. The United States held the ultimate title, charged with the right of undisturbed occupancy and perpetual possession, in the Indian nation, with the exclusive power in the Government of acquiring the right. Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Whea., 603; Comet v. Winton, 2 Yerger’s R., 147. Although the Government alone can purchase lands from an Indian nation, it does ,not follow^ that when the fights of •the nation are extinguished, an individual of the nation who takes as private owner cannot sell his interest. The Indian title is property, and alienable, unless the treaty had prohib *464 ited its sale. Comet v. Winton, 2 Yerger’s R., 148. Blair and Johnson v. Pathkiller’s Lessee, 2 Yerger, 414. So far from this being-the case in the instance before us, it is manifest that sales of the reserved sections were contemplated, as the lands ceded were "forthwith to be surveyed, sold, and inhabited by a white population, among whom the Indians could not remain. We hold that Pet-chi-co was a tenant in common with the United States, and could sell his reserved interest; and that when the United States selected the lands reserved to him, and made partition, (of which the patent is conclusive evidence,) his grantees took the interest he would have taken if living. We order the judgment to be affirmed.