Court case

Jones v. Meehan

A treaty can itself grant individual land in fee to a chief, with no later act of Congress or patent, the Court held.

Citation
175 U.S. 1 (1899)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1899
Nations
Chippewa (Red Lake and Pembina bands)
Treaty at issue
Treaty of 1863 (Old Crossing)
Effect on land rights
advanced

What happened

In article 9 of the treaty made at the Old Crossing of Red Lake River on October 2, 1863, between the United States and the Red Lake and Pembina bands of Chippewa, the bands ceded a large tract of country. The treaty provided that "there shall be set apart from the tract hereby ceded a reservation of six hundred and forty acres near the mouth of the Thief River for the chief Moose Dung."

The elder Moose Dung lived on that land at the mouth of Thief River. He died in 1872, before the land was surveyed, and his eldest son, Moose Dung the younger, succeeded him as chief. In 1891 the younger Moose Dung leased a strip of the land to Patrick and James Meehan for ten years. Ray Jones claimed under a later lease. On August 4, 1894, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to approve it, and the Secretary did so on December 27, 1894. The Meehans sued Jones to quiet title.

The Supreme Court affirmed for the Meehans. When a treaty reserves land for a chief, it held, the treaty itself converts the land into individual property: "equivalent to a present grant of a complete title in fee simple," unless the treaty limits it. Treaties with tribes are read in the sense in which "they would naturally be understood by the Indians." Inheritance of the land was controlled by the tribe's laws, usages and customs, not state law or the Secretary of the Interior, so it passed to the eldest son.

The 1894 resolution and the Interior Department's later action could not divest rights already acquired under the lease.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the IndiansJones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. having descended, upon his death, by the laws, customs and usages of the tribe, to his eldest son and successor as chiefJones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. is controlled by the laws, usages and customs of the tribe, and not by the law ot the State in which the land liesJones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The U.S. Reports text is a scanned copy with errors (for example 'ot' for 'of' in a quoted line). The phrase 'equivalent to a present grant of a complete title in fee simple' is quoted from the syllabus, where the printed text breaks 'pres- ent' across a line. The case is about title to a strip along the Red Lake River at Thief River Falls; the opinion does not discuss the Chippewa bands' present land base.

Treaty or agreementShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 2

Concerns the instrument 1

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/175/1/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
A treaty can convey alienable fee title to an individual tribal member without a patent; a treaty 'must therefore be construed not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers'.verified
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record