fbpx
Wikipedia

United States v. Cook

United States v. Cook, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 591 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Indian tribes do not own the land their reservations are on, the land is owned by the United States and the Indians only have a right to occupy the land. They may not cut and sell timber merely for the purpose of selling timber, they may only sell timber that was cut incidental to another purpose. The government has a right to take action to recover damages for timber sold illegally from that land.

United States v. Cook
Decided May 4, 1874
Full case nameUnited States v. George Cook
Citations86 U.S. 591 (more)
19 Wall. 591; 22 L. Ed. 210
Case history
PriorCertificate of division, C.C.E.D. Wis.
Holding
Indian tribes do not own the land their reservations are on, the land is owned by the United States and the Indians only have a right to occupy the land. They may not cut and sell timber merely for the purpose of selling timber, they may only sell timber that was cut incidental to another purpose. The government has a right to take action to recover damages for timber sold illegally from that land.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Nathan Clifford · Noah H. Swayne
Samuel F. Miller · David Davis
Stephen J. Field · William Strong
Joseph P. Bradley · Ward Hunt
Case opinion
MajorityWaite, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Common law decision, based on replevin, waste, and Indian right of occupancy
Superseded by
Statute, 25 U.S.C. §§ 406–407, as stated in United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983).

Background edit

In 1831, the Menominee tribe turned over part of their reservation in Wisconsin to the United States for use by the Stockbridge Indians.[1] Some of the tribe cut timber and sold the logs to George Cook. The federal government brought an action in common law known as a writ of replevin to recover the logs from Cook. It came to the Supreme Court on a certificate of division. The only side to present an argument was the United States, Cook was not represented before the Court.[2]

Opinion of the Court edit

 
Author of the opinion, Chief Justice Morrison Waite

Chief Justice Morrison Waite delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Waite stated that the title held by the Stockbridge tribe was one of occupancy only, that the United States held the fee title to the land.[3] Justice Waite noted that this had been decided in Johnson v. McIntosh[4] 50 years earlier, in 1823.[5] The Indians were not allowed to cut and sell lumber under the legal principal of waste.[6] If they were clearing land for agriculture, they could sell the lumber as an incidental byproduct of the improvement to the land.[7] The sale must be incidental to the improvement, and if not, the federal government may take legal action to recover the lumber.[8]

Subsequent developments edit

This principle of waste and sale of material from reservation land was changed in 1920, when Congress passed a law authorizing the sale of timber for the benefit of the tribes.[9]

References edit

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

  1. ^ United States v. Cook, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 591, 592 (1873).
  2. ^ Cook, 86 U.S. at 591.
  3. ^ Cook, 86 U.S. at 592-93; citing Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 48 (1831).
  4. ^ Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 574 (1823).
  5. ^ Cook, 86 U.S. at 593.
  6. ^ Cook, 86 U.S. at 594.
  7. ^ Cook, 86 U.S. at 593-94.
  8. ^ Cook, 86 U.S. at 594, citing Cotton v. United States, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 229 (1851).
  9. ^ Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 855 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 406–407); see also United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983).

External links edit

  • Text of United States v. Cook, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 591 (1873) is available from: Justia  Library of Congress  OpenJurist 

united, states, cook, wall, 1873, united, states, supreme, court, case, which, court, held, that, indian, tribes, land, their, reservations, land, owned, united, states, indians, only, have, right, occupy, land, they, sell, timber, merely, purpose, selling, ti. United States v Cook 86 U S 19 Wall 591 1873 was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Indian tribes do not own the land their reservations are on the land is owned by the United States and the Indians only have a right to occupy the land They may not cut and sell timber merely for the purpose of selling timber they may only sell timber that was cut incidental to another purpose The government has a right to take action to recover damages for timber sold illegally from that land United States v CookSupreme Court of the United StatesDecided May 4 1874Full case nameUnited States v George CookCitations86 U S 591 more 19 Wall 591 22 L Ed 210Case historyPriorCertificate of division C C E D Wis HoldingIndian tribes do not own the land their reservations are on the land is owned by the United States and the Indians only have a right to occupy the land They may not cut and sell timber merely for the purpose of selling timber they may only sell timber that was cut incidental to another purpose The government has a right to take action to recover damages for timber sold illegally from that land Court membershipChief Justice Morrison Waite Associate Justices Nathan Clifford Noah H SwayneSamuel F Miller David DavisStephen J Field William StrongJoseph P Bradley Ward HuntCase opinionMajorityWaite joined by unanimousLaws appliedCommon law decision based on replevin waste and Indian right of occupancySuperseded byStatute 25 U S C 406 407 as stated in United States v Mitchell 463 U S 206 1983 Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the Court 3 Subsequent developments 4 References 5 External linksBackground editIn 1831 the Menominee tribe turned over part of their reservation in Wisconsin to the United States for use by the Stockbridge Indians 1 Some of the tribe cut timber and sold the logs to George Cook The federal government brought an action in common law known as a writ of replevin to recover the logs from Cook It came to the Supreme Court on a certificate of division The only side to present an argument was the United States Cook was not represented before the Court 2 Opinion of the Court edit nbsp Author of the opinion Chief Justice Morrison WaiteChief Justice Morrison Waite delivered the opinion of the Court Justice Waite stated that the title held by the Stockbridge tribe was one of occupancy only that the United States held the fee title to the land 3 Justice Waite noted that this had been decided in Johnson v McIntosh 4 50 years earlier in 1823 5 The Indians were not allowed to cut and sell lumber under the legal principal of waste 6 If they were clearing land for agriculture they could sell the lumber as an incidental byproduct of the improvement to the land 7 The sale must be incidental to the improvement and if not the federal government may take legal action to recover the lumber 8 Subsequent developments editThis principle of waste and sale of material from reservation land was changed in 1920 when Congress passed a law authorizing the sale of timber for the benefit of the tribes 9 References editThe citations in this article are written in Bluebook style Please see the talk page for more information United States v Cook 86 U S 19 Wall 591 592 1873 Cook 86 U S at 591 Cook 86 U S at 592 93 citing Cherokee Nation v Georgia 30 U S 5 Pet 1 48 1831 Johnson v McIntosh 21 U S 8 Wheat 543 574 1823 Cook 86 U S at 593 Cook 86 U S at 594 Cook 86 U S at 593 94 Cook 86 U S at 594 citing Cotton v United States 52 U S 11 How 229 1851 Act of June 25 1910 36 Stat 855 codified as amended at 25 U S C 406 407 see also United States v Mitchell 463 U S 206 219 1983 External links editText of United States v Cook 86 U S 19 Wall 591 1873 is available from Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title United States v Cook amp oldid 1175151274, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.