allottee during his lifetime, run with land and prevent heirs of deceased allottee from alienating land before expiration of such periods.

Fact that allotment was to be made in name of deceased ancestor instead of in names of heirs furnishes no reason for implying requirement that portion of lands should be designated as homestead.

Approved in Woodward v. De Graffenried, 36 Okl. 86, 131 Pac. 164, holding allotment of Creek freedman selected under Curtis act of 1898, patented to heirs, including part that would have been homestead, is alienable after act of 1904 removes restrictions; Young v. Chapman, 37, Okl. 21, 130 Pac. 290, Deming Inv. Co. v. Bruner Oil Co., 35 Okl. 398, 130 Pac. 1158, Parkinson v. Skelton, 33 Okl. 820, 128 Pac. 134, and Rentie v. McCoy, 35 Okl. 81, 82, 128 Pac. 246, all holding land allotted to heirs of Creek freedman under section 28 of Creek Agreement, including homestead, is alienable free from restrictions after enactment of act of 1904.

Provision of paragraph 16 of Choctaw and Chickasaw Agreement limiting right of heirs to sell surplus lands is part of scheme for allotment to living members where there is segregation of homestead and surplus lands and there is no warrant for importing it into paragraph twenty-two where there is no such segregation.

Approved in Deming Inv. Co. v. Bruner Oil Co., 35 Okl. 401, 130 Pac. 1159, holding lands allotted to Creek Indian under section 28, Creek Agreement descended to his heirs free from restrictions on alienation; Rentie v. McCoy, 35 Okl. 82, 83, 128 Pac. 247, holding land allotted to heirs of Creek freedmen under section 28 of Creek Agreement is free from restrictions on homesteads under section 16 of Supplemental Agreement and is alienable under act of 1904 removing restrictions except as to homesteads; Stout v. Simpson, 34 Okl. 138, 124 Pac. 758, holding heirs of deceased Seminole allottees may lease allotted lands inherited. Distinguished in In re Lands of Five Civilized Tribes, 199 Fed. 815, 816, holding restriction on alienation imposed by Choctaw and Chickasaw Supplemental Agreement, § 16, upon surplus lands allotted to members of tribe, runs with land and prohibits alienation of land by allottee or his heirs within periods of restriction.

Where Indian lands had been duly allotted, right to patent existed, and there being no restriction under paragraph 22 of Choctaw and Chickasaw Supplemental Agreement of 1902, upon alienation of lands prior to date of patent, there was complete equitable interest which owner could convey.

Approved in Perryman v. Woodward, 238 U. S. 151, 59 L. Ed. 1244, 35 Sup. Ct. 830, holding effect of act of 1910 upon deed made in 1904 by chief of Creek Nation and approved by Secretary of Interior purporting to convey land to person dying intestate in 1900 is to establish its

validity and purchaser from widow vested with title under decree of probate court obtains title; Goat v. United States, 224 U. S. 470, 56 L. Ed. 847, 32 Sup. Ct. 544, holding valid conveyance by adult Seminole freedmen of surplus lands allotted to them under act of 1898, where conveyance was made after removal of restrictions upon alienation by act of 1904; United States v. Dowden, 220 Fed. 280, 136 C. C. A. 293, holding selection of allotment by Choctaw Indians and issuance of certificate by commission vests absolute title with right to patent in allottee, and Secretary of Interior has no power to cancel allotment and segregate land for town site; Thomason v. Wellman, 206 Fed. 897, 124 C. C. A. 555, holding under Choctaw and Chickasaw Supplemental Agreement of 1902, par. 6, Chickasaw Indian having selected surplus allotment had equitable title which she could convey, prior to issuance of allotment certificate and upon issuance of patent title relates to date of selection; In re Lands of Five Civilized Tribes, 199 Fed. 828, holding under Creek Supplemental Agreement of 1906, § 16, restriction on alienation applies only to surplus lands of allottee, and upon death of allottee homestead allotment, in absence of children born after May 25, 1901, is immediately alienable by heirs whether before or after expiration of period of restriction; Reed v. Welty, 197 Fed. 420, holding provisions of Original Creek Agreement, § 7, and of Supplemental Creek Agreement, § 16, did not impose restrictions upon alienation of lands allotted to heirs of citizen who died before receiving his allotment; Vachon v. Nichols-Chisolm Lumber Co., 126 Minn. 313, 148 N. W. 290, allowing recovery by administrator of amount due upon contract for sale of standing timber made by mixed-blood Chippewa Indian allottee, who conveyed prior to issuance of trust patent or fee patent, but after Clapp Amendment of 1906 removing restrictions; Bilby v. Gilliland, 41 Okl. 681, 682, 683, 137 Pac. 688, 689, holding allotment made under act of 1898 for benefit of heirs of Creek Indian, who died before selection was made, was free from restrictions upon alienation and warranty deed executed by heirs after allotment was made to them, conveyed fee-simple title thereto; McNac v. Jones, 38 Okl. 324, 132 Pac. 1090, holding lands patented to heirs of Creek freedman in 1904 were alienable in 1905 free from restrictions; Lynch v. Franklin, 37 Okl. 64, 130 Pac. 600, holding act of 1904 removing restrictions upon alienation of lands of Five Civilized Tribes did not apply to grantor not in possession of land, and not having selected allotment, and contract to make deed to allotment to which she was entitled, and deed, were void; Parkinson v. Skelton, 33 Okl 818, 128 Pac. 133, holding under act of 1904 land alienable by allottee who is white member of Creek Tribe, is alienable by heirs without reference to their blood; Coachman v. Sims, 36 Okl. 537, 129 Pac. 846, holding full-blood Creek Indian, who died in 1900, could not by will

dispose of lands subsequently allotted to his heirs; American Trust Co. v. Chitty, 36 Okl. 487, 129 Pac. 55, holding refusal to give instruction that allotment of deceased member of Choctaw-Chickasaw Tribe could be sold by heirs prior to issuance of patent was not error, where nothing in record shows allotment was made before allottee died; Hoteyabi v. Vaughn, 32 Okl. 808, 124 Pac. 63, holding lands allotted under act of 1902 in name of deceased member of Choctaw Tribe are alienable by heirs after selection within periods of restriction.

Distinguished in Aaron v. United States, 204 Fed. 944, 123 C. C. A. 265, holding titles of heir to homestead and surplus lands of Osage Indian allottee were subject to restrictions imposed upon such classes of lands by act of 1906; Bledsoe v. Wortman, 35 Okl. 263, 129 Pac. 842, holding conveyance of surplus allotment by adult member of Cherokee Indian Tribe, not of Indian blood, before selection of such allotment, is void.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Woodward v. De Graffenried, 238 U. S. 293, 59 L. Ed. 1318, 35 Sup. Ct. 764, referring to history of Indian allotments.

224 U. S. 458-471, 56 L. Ed. 841, 32 Sup. Ct. 544, GOAT v. UNITED STATES.

United States has capacity to bring suit to set aside conveyances of lands allotted to Indians made in violation of restrictions on alienation. Approved in McDaniel v. Holland, 230 Fed. 948, 145 C. C. A. 139, holding Cherokee Indian, who is citizen of United States may, after attaining majority, sue in ejectment to recover allotted lands conveyed by him during his minority; Bartlett v. United States, 203 Fed. 413, 121 C. C. A. 520, holding United States has no such interest in Indian allotted land as entitles it to maintain suit to set aside conveyances made after termination of restrictions.

Inalienability of allotted lands was not due to quality of allottee's interest, but to express restriction imposed, and equitable interest was one which in absence of restriction allottee could convey.

Approved in Welty v. Reed, 219 Fed. 867, 135 C. C. A. 534, holding allotment to Creek citizen under Curtis Act of 1898 gave interest or estate that would descend to his heirs at his death.

Conveyances of surplus lands by adult Seminole freedman allottees, under act of 1898, executed prior to patent and to act of 1904, are invalid, but conveyances made after passage of act of 1904, are valid.

Approved in Deming Investment Co. v. United States, 224 U. S. 473, 56 L. Ed. 849, 32 Sup. Ct. 549, following rule; In re Lands of Five Civilized Tribes, 199 Fed. 826, holding under act of 1903, equitable interest of Seminole in homestead allotment is immediately alienable

by heirs; Vachon v. Nichols-Chisolm Lumber Co., 126 Minn. 313, 148 N. W. 290, allowing recovery by administrator of amount due upon contract for sale of standing timber made by mixed blood Chippewa Indian allottee, where conveyance was made prior to issuance of trust or fee patent, but after Clapp Amendment of 1906 removing restrictions; Bradley v. Goddard, 45 Okl. 80, 145 Pac. 410, holding under act of 1904 removed restrictions upon alienation of lands, heirs of allottee could alienate allotment; Benadum v. Armstrong, 44 Okl. 640, 146 Pac. 35, holding fact that patent has not issued is not bar to alienation of allotment of Cherokee freedman allottee subsequent to act of 1904 removing restrictions on alienation of surplus lands and act of 1908 removing restrictions on alienation of homestead lands; Smith v. Bell, 44 Okl. 373, 144 Pac. 1060, and Charles v. Thornburgh, 44 Okl. 385, 144 Pac. 1035, holding under act of 1904, freedman citizen of Creek Nation could alienate surplus allotment upon attaining majority, although minor at time of passing act; Lynch v. Franklin, 37 Okl. 64, 68, 130 Pac. 600, 602, holding contract to make deed to allotment to which allottee was entitled and deed to allotment void, where grantor was not in possession and had not selected allotment; Rentie v. McCoy, 35 Okl. 84, 86, 128 Pac. 247, 248, and Young v. Chapman, 37 Okl. 21, 130 Pac. 290, both holding land allotted to Creek freedman under section 28 of Creek Agreement, is alienable free from restrictions under act of 1908; Stout v. Simpson, 34 Okl. 135, 124 Pac. 756, holding under act of 1903 deed executed by full-blood Indian heirs of deceased Seminole Indian made subsequent to allotment and prior to act of 1906 conveys title to homestead, although no patent had been issued.

Distinguished in Woodward v. De Graffenried, 238 U. S. 293, 306, 307, 59 L. Ed. 1318, 1323, 1324, 35 Sup. Ct. 764, holding under section 28 of Original Creek Agreement, adopted in 1901, equitable title to allotment made, under Curtis Act of 1898, to Creek female citizen, who died before ratification of original Creek Agreement, vested in her heirs, and under Creek laws of descent noncitizen husband takes half interest; Bledsoe v. Wortman, 35 Okl. 263, 264, 268, 271, 129 Pac. 842, 844, 845, holding conveyance of surplus allotment by adult member of Cherokee Nation, who is not of Indian blood, before selection of allotment void.

Restrictions upon alienation are not to be implied so as to make them applicable to all lands taken by heirs of allottee.

Approved in Stout v. Simpson, 34 Okl. 138, 124 Pac. 758, holding heirs of deceased Seminole allottees may lease allotted lands which they have inherited.

Miscellaneous. Cited in United States v. Wright, 229 U. S. 237, 57 L. Ed. 1166, 33 Sup. Ct. 630, referring to policy of United States in allotting lands to Indians.

224 U. S. 471-473, 56 L. Ed. 847, 32 Sup. Ct. 549, DEMING INVESTMENT CO. v. UNITED STATES.

United States may sue to set aside conveyances made in violation of restrictions on alienation of land allotted to Indians.

Approved in Bartlett v. United States, 203 Fed. 413, 121 C. C. A. 520, holding United States has no such interest in Indian allotted lands as entitles it to maintain suit to set aside conveyances made after termination of restrictions.

Conveyances of surplus lands by adult Seminole freedman allottees, under act of 1898, executed prior to patent and after passage of act of 1904, removing restrictions upon alienation except as to homesteads, are valid.

Approved in Vachon v. Nichols-Chisolm Lumber Co., 126 Minn. 314, 148 N. W. 291, holding contract to make deed to allotment to which allottee was entitled and deed to allotment void, where grantor was not in possession and had not selected allotment; Smith v. Bell, 44 Okl. 374, 144 Pac. 1060, and Charles v. Thornburgh, 44 Okl. 385, 144 Pac. 1035, both holding under act of 1904, freedman citizen of Creek Nation could alienate surplus allotment upon attaining majority, although minor at time of passage of act.

Miscellaneous. Cited in United States v. Wright, 229 U. S. 237, 57 L. Ed. 1166, 33 Sup. Ct. 630, referring to policy of United States in allotting lands to Indians.

224 U. S. 474-485, 56 L. Ed. 849, 32 Sup. Ct. 556, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. UNITED STATES EX REL. HUMBOLDT S. S. CO.

Mandamus lies to compel Interstate Commerce Commission to take jurisdiction to investigate violation of Act to Regulate Commerce in Alaska and to compel carriers to conform to law.

Distinguished in United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 42 App. D. C. 518, denying mandamus to review decision by Interstate Commerce Commission that shipper's claim for refund of overcharges by carrier is barred by limitations.

224 U. S. 486-490, 56 L. Ed. 854, 32 Sup. Ct. 554, WASHINGTON HOME FOR INCURABLES v. AMERICAN SECURITY & T. CO.

Judicial Code, section 299 saving appeals saves jurisdiction when appeal has been taken, but does not save appeal for all suits in causes of action accrued before January 1, 1912.

Approved in Texas Gum Co. v. Autosales Gum etc. Co., 219 Fed. 167, 135 C. C. A. 63, holding provision of Judicial Code, § 299, that repeal of existing laws shall not affect act done or right accruing or accrued or suit or proceeding pending on writ of error when act took effect refers