260 U.S.

220
43 S.Ct. 78
67 L.Ed. 224

UNITED STATES
v.
ATKINS et al. ATKINS et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
Nos. 45, 46.
Argued Oct. 11, 12, 1922.
Decided Nov. 20, 1922.

Mr. H. L. Underwood, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 221-223 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Joseph M. Hill, of Ft. Smith, Ark., Napoleon B. Maxey and
Malcolm E. Rosser, both of Muskogee, Okl., and Henry L. Fitzhugh, of
Ft. Smith, Ark., for appellants Atkins and others.
Mr. C. B. Stuart, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for Minnie Atkins and others.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under authority of Acts of Congress the [Dawes] Commission to the Five

Civilized Tribes enrolled Thomas Atkins as a Creek Indian alive on April 1,
1899; the Secretary of the Interior approved; an allotment was selected for him;
a patent issued and was recorded as required by law. Minnie Atkins undertook,
as his sole heir, to convey the land to certain named defendants. Alleging that
Thomas Atkins never existed and that his enrollment came about through fraud
and gross mistake of law and fact, the United States brought this proceeding
against many defendants to annul the allotment certificate and patent and to
quiet title in the Tribe.

Minnie Atkins maintains that the enrolled Thomas was her son; that he was
born prior to April 1, 1899, and died thereafter, leaving her as sole heir. Nancy
Atkins claims to be the mother and sole heir. She filed a cross-bill asking that
the title to the land be confirmed to her and those claiming through her. Henry

Carter asserts that he is the individual enrolled as Thomas Atkins.

3

The trial court ruled that the enrollment by the Commission amounted to an
adjudication that Thomas Atkins was a living person on April 1, 1899, entitled
to membership; that this finding was not subject to collateral attack under a
mere allegation of his nonexistence; and that it could not be annulled for fraud,
unless the fraud alleged and proved was such as to have prevented a full hearing
within the doctrine approved by United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, 25
L. Ed. 93, Vance v. Burbank, 101 U. S. 514, 25 L. Ed. 929, and Hilton v.
Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 16 Sup. Ct. 139, 40 L. Ed. 95. The relief asked by the
United States was accordingly denied. Having considered the voluminous
testimony, it found Minnie Atkins to be the mother of Thomas and owner of the
land subject to the rights of those claiming under her. The Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed a final decree embodying these conclusions. Folk v. United
States, 233 Fed. 177, 147 C. C. A. 183; United States v. Atkins, 268 Fed. 923.

In United States v. Wildcat, 244 U. S. 111, 118, 119, 37 Sup. Ct. 561, 564 (61
L. Ed. 1024), it was insisted that the Indian died prior to April 1, 1899, and that
his enrollment as of that date was beyond the jurisdiction of the Dawes
Commission and void within the doctrine of Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 14
Sup. Ct. 1108, 38 L. Ed. 896. Much consideration was given to the statutes
creating and defining the powers of the Commission and the effect of an
enrollment. This court said:

'There was thus constituted a quasi judicial tribunal whose judgments within
the limits of its jurisdiction were only subject to attack for fraud or such mistake
of law or fact as would justify the holding that its judgments were voidable.
Congress by this legislation evidenced an intention to put an end to controversy
by providing a tribunal before which those interested could be heard and the
rolls authoritatively made up of those who were entitled to participate in the
partition of the tribal lands. It was to the interest of all concerned that the
beneficiaries of this division should be ascertained. To this end the
Commission was established and endowed with authority to hear and determine
the matter. * * *

'When the Commission proceeded in good faith to determine the matter and to
act upon information before it, not arbitrarily, but according to its best
judgment, we think it was the intention of the act that the matter, upon the
approval of the Secretary, should be finally concluded and the rights of the
parties forever settled, subject to such attacks as could successfully be made
upon judgments of this character for fraud or mistake.

'We cannot agree that the case is within the principles decided in Scott v.
McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, and kindred cases, in which it has been held that in the
absence of a subject-matter of jurisdiction an adjudication that there was such is
not conclusive, and that a judgment based upon action without its proper subject
being in existence is void. * * * We think the decision of such tribunal, when
not impeached for fraud or mistake, conclusive of the question of membership
in the tribe, when followed, as was the case here, by the action of the Interior
Department confirming the allotment and ordering the patents conveying the
lands, which were in fact issued.'

It must be accepted now as finally settled that the enrollment of a member of an

Indian tribe by the Dawes Commission, when duly approved, amounts to a
judgment in an adversary proceeding determining the existence of the
individual and his right to membership subject, of course, to impeachment
under the well established rules where such judgments are involved.

The questions of fact relating to the conflicting claims advanced by Minnie

Atkins, Nancy Atkins, and Henry Carter have been determined in favor of
Minnie by both courts below upon survey of all the evidence; and we find
nothing which would justify us in overruling their well considered action.

10

The decree of the court below is affirmed.