25 U.S.C. § 372

Ascertainment of heirs of deceased allottees; settlement of estates; sale of lands; deposit of Indian moneys

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

When any Indian to whom an allotment of land has been made, or may hereafter be made, dies before the expiration of the trust period and before the issuance of a fee simple patent, without having made a will disposing of said allotment as hereinafter provided, the Secretary of the Interior, upon notice and hearing, under the Indian Land Consolidation Act [25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.] or a tribal probate code approved under such Act and pursuant to such rules as he may prescribe, shall ascertain the legal heirs of such decedent, and his decisions shall be subject to judicial review to the same extent as determinations rendered under section 373 of this title. If the Secretary of the Interior decides the heir or heirs of such decedent competent to manage their own affairs, he shall issue to such heir or heirs a patent in fee for the allotment of such decedent; if he shall decide one or more of the heirs to be incompetent, he may, in his discretion, cause such lands to be sold: Provided, That if the Secretary of the Interior shall find that the lands of the decedent are capable of partition to the advantage of the heirs, he may cause the shares of such as are competent, upon their petition, to be set aside and patents in fee to be issued to them therefor. All sales of lands allotted to Indians authorized by this or any other Act shall be made under such rules and regulations and upon such terms as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, and he shall require a deposit of 10 per centum of the purchase price at the time of the sale. Should the purchaser fail to comply with the terms of sale prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, the amount so paid shall be forfeited; in case the balance of the purchase price is to be paid on such deferred payments, all payments made, together with all interest paid on such deferred installments, shall be so forfeited for failure to comply with the terms of the sale. All forfeitures shall inure to the benefit of the allottee or his heirs. Upon payment of the purchase price in full, the Secretary of the Interior shall cause to be issued to the purchaser patent in fee for such land: Provided, That the proceeds of the sale of inherited lands shall be paid to such heir or heirs as may be competent and held in trust subject to use and expenditure during the trust period for such heir or heirs as may be incompetent as their respective interests shall appear: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion, to issue a certificate of competency, upon application therefor, to any Indian, or in case of his death to his heirs, to whom a patent in fee containing restrictions on alienation has been or may hereafter be issued, and such certificate shall have the effect of removing the restrictions on alienation contained in such patent: Provided further, That any United States Indian agent, superintendent, or other disbursing agent of the Indian Service may deposit Indian moneys, individual or tribal, coming into his hands as custodian, in such bank or banks as he may select: Provided, That the bank or banks so selected by him shall first execute to the said disbursing agent a bond, with approved surety, in such amount as will properly safeguard the funds to be deposited. Such bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 57 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1929–2022 · leading case: George Kicking Woman v. Donald P. Hodel, Sec'y of the Interior, & Leo Lee Old Person, 878 F.2d 1203 (9th Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

George Kicking Woman v. Donald P. Hodel, Sec'y of the Interior, & Leo Lee Old Person, 878 F.2d 1203 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 9× “The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on some claims and dismissed others for lack of jurisdiction due to the statutory bar to judicial review of 25 U.S.C. § 372 . 2 George and the other relatives now appeal.”

In Re the Est. of Flaws, 2016 SD 60 (S.D. 2016). · cites it 4× “” They argue that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 372 , the BIA’s decisions are final and conclusive.”

In Re the Est. of Flaws, 2016 SD 61 (S.D. 2016). · cites it 4× “” 1 Appellants then direct us to a number of cases in support of their position that the power to determine heirs rests exclusively with the IBIA and that such determination is final and conclusive.”

Lummi Indian Tribe v. Whatcom Cnty., Washington Barbara Cory, Treasurer of Whatcom Cnty., 5 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “In 1916, after determining that Jones was “fully competent and capable of transacting his own business,” *1357 the Secretary of the Interior issued him a “Certificate of Competency:” See 25 U.S.C. § 372 (1988). It removed any restrictions on Jones’ ability to alienate the land.”

Tooahnippah v. Hickel, 397 U.S. 598 (1970). · cites it 4× “855 , 25 U. S. C. § 372 , [9] § 2, 36 Stat. 856 , as amended by the Act of February 14, 1913, 37 Stat.”

Deba Edelman v. W. Airlines, Inc., 892 F.2d 839 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “1989), we faced the question “whether an exception to 25 U.S.C. § 372’s bar to judicial review of [Board of Indian Appeal’s] decisions exists in cases, in which a prospective plaintiff raises a due process challenge to the conduct of the .”

Leroy v. Johnson v. Thomas S. Kleppe, Sec'y of the Interior for the United States of Am., Washington, D. C., 596 F.2d 950 (10th Cir. 1979). · cites it 8× “To such complaint the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss on the ground, among others, that a determination of legal heirs under 25 U.S.C. § 372 is not reviewable by the judiciary.”

In Re Est. of Big Spring, 2011 MT 109 (Mont. 2011). “25 U.S.C. §372 . As indicated supra ¶ 10, the Department of Interior held a series of hearings to settle that portion of the Estate *383 that was an Indian trust allotment.”

Willis Attocknie v. Stewart L. Udall, Sec'y of the Interior, 390 F.2d 636 (10th Cir. 1968). · cites it 5× “Reliance is placed in his argument on the wording of 25 U.S.C. §§ 372 and 373, and the Secretary further asserted that the Administrative Procedure Act does not permit the review sought by the petitioner.”

Hanson v. Hoffman, 113 F.2d 780 (10th Cir. 1940). · cites it 3× “855 , 25 U.S.C.A. § 372 , the heirs at law of Benjamin, and no court under authority of.”

Ex Parte Pero, 99 F.2d 28 (7th Cir. 1938). · cites it 2× “assistant to the Secretary of the Interior by Section 1 of the Act of Congress of June 25, 1910, 25 U.S.C.A. § 372 ; and the certificate purports to invest Pero “with full power and authority to sell and convey any and all lands above described.”

Siniscal v. United States United States v. Siniscal, 208 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1953). · cites it 2× “25 U.S.C.A. § 372 ; 25 C.F.R. 241.11, 241.”

Show all 57 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.