52 FEDERAL REPORTER.
Bromanvumm and others v. Tnonr and others.
(Circuit Court, D. Kansas. J une 9, 1886.)
1. INDIANS——DEED or- Inman LAND-Ev1DnucE.
Where a deed of lands purports to have been executed by the heirs of a
deceased Indian, neither the "certificate of identity " required by the interior
department, nor the formal approval of said deed by the secretary of that de-
partment, are conclusive on the United States courts as to the identity of the
grantors.
2. SAmE—VAL1D1·rY OF DEED.
When the validity of such a deed is in issue before said courts, and the
proofs show that the grantors therein falsely personated the real heirs, and
thereby actually misled the oilicial who approved the conveyance, the deed
will be held void.
At Law.
` Beeson rf Baker and Brayman et Sheldon, for plaintiffs.
T. M. Carroll and W. T. Johnson, for defendants.
BREWER, J. This question is presented: One Pa-pee—ze-sa-wah
was the patentee of lands in Miami county. He was a member of
the confederated tribes of Kaskaskia and Peoria, Piankeshaw, and
Wea Indians. He died about 1857, unmarried, childless. The
plaintiffs in this suit are his heirs, both by the common law, and any
known law that recognizes blood relationship as a rule of inheritance.
In 1870 there was a deed made by Felix Waddle and Louisa of this
land to parties under whom the defendants claim. That deed was
approved. It was accompanied by the certihcate of the chiefs Bap-
tiste Peoria and James Charlie that Felix Waddle and Louisa were
the sole heirs of Pa-pee-ze—sa-wah, and with that certificate went the
approval of the secretary of the interior. And the question in the
case is whether that approved deed is good against the unquestionable
title by inheritance of these plaintiffs.
The act of congress providing for the allotment and patenting of
these lands to the Indians in severalty authorized their sale under
such regulations and rules as should be prescribed by the secretary
of the interior. In pursuance thereof, the secretary of the interior
issued a series of rules, one of which was to the effect that where the
patentee was dead the deed should be accompanied by a certificate of
the head chiefs that the grantors were the sole heirs of the deceased.
e Was that sufficient todivest the real heirs of the decedent of their
title? Such action of the chiefs and the secretary of the interior
‘ would obviously not be sufficient, under the federal statute alone, be- ·
cause that gives no authority to the secretary of the interior to pre-
scribe rules and regulations by which other persons than those who
held the title could divest the real holder of such title. He can say
what evidence shall be submitted as to the competency of the grantor,
his ability to manage his aifairs, the fact that the money was paid,