Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Mason

• 1908 • 213 U.S. 115 • Fuller Court
In the United States v. Mason case of 1908, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Mason, claimed that he had purchased a plot of land from an individual who had received it as part of an allotment under the Dawes Act (an act which granted lands to Native Americans). However, this sale was made before the expiration of a statutory period during which such sales were prohibited by law. The defendant argued that because this initial sale was...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1908
Docket: 642
213 U.S. 115
29 S. Ct. 480
53 L. Ed. 725
1909 U.S. LEXIS 1859
Argued: Mar 05, 1909

United States v. Mason

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Mason case of 1908, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Mason, claimed that he had purchased a plot of land from an individual who had received it as part of an allotment under the Dawes Act (an act which granted lands to Native Americans). However, this sale was made before the expiration of a statutory period during which such sales were prohibited by law. The defendant argued that because this initial sale was illegal and voided by federal law at its inception due to violation of restrictions imposed by Congress on alienation or transferability for certain periods after allotment, any subsequent transactions including his purchase should also be considered invalid. In response to these arguments, Justice David Brewer delivered the opinion for a unanimous court stating that while original transaction may have been voidable rather than absolutely null and void since it could potentially be ratified later if not challenged within reasonable time frame; however in this particular instance where government itself intervened timely asserting illegality - title never effectively passed from original allotee making all subsequent transfers invalid too.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Mason, 1908, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed federal authorities to seize and destroy liquor on an Indian reservation without due process of law. He argued that this action violated the Fifth Amendment rights of non-Indians living on reservations who were engaged in legal trade under state laws. Harlan believed it was unconstitutional for Congress to authorize such seizures without providing any form of judicial review or compensation for property owners affected by these actions. He also expressed concern about potential abuses of power if government officials were given unchecked authority to confiscate private property based solely on their own judgments about what constituted "intoxicating liquors."

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: Apr 05, 1909
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms