Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

166 P. 422

Sampson v. Smith

Decided June 19, 1917

Relies on Sampson v. Stapleton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1917-06-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1988

7 state decisions

2019171920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This case is on appeal from the district court of Carter county. Okla.

¶2 Selia Sampson, a full-blood Mississippi Choctaw Indian, died in 1903, but her enrollment was not approved by the Secretary of the Interior until March 2, 1907, and certificates of allotment were not issued until the years 1907 and 1908.

¶3*104 During the years 1907, 1908, 1909, and 1910 John Sampson, father of Selia Sampson, a full-blood Mississippi Choctaw Indian, executed a series of deeds to some of the defendants in error. These deeds were not approved either by the Secretary of the Interior or by the judge of the county court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of the deceased allottee. The deeds executed by the heirs of Selia Sampson prior to the taking effect of the act _ of May 27, 1908, are void, because not approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and the deeds executed after the taking effect of said act are void, because not approved by the judge of the county court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of the said Selia Sampson, deceased.

¶4 The legal Questions involved are substantially the same as in case No. 4379, Sampson et al. v. Staples, 55 Okla. 547, 155 Pac. 213, and the law as therein announced governs this case.

¶5 The trial court held that the unapproved deeds were valid, which holding is error.

¶6 The cause is therefore reversed, and remanded for a new trial.

All ■ the Justices concur, except HARDY and RAINEY, JJ., who dissent from paragraph 2 of the syllabus.
/166/p/422 · .json · Public domain