William A. Bacher, Joseph H. Sage, Etc. v. Joseph Patrick Patencio

The majority agrees with the reasoning of Judge Byrne in the court below. *1011 232 F.Supp. 939 (S.D.Cal.1964). The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

368 F.2d 1010 William A. BACHER, Joseph H. Sage, etc., Appellants, v. Joseph Patrick PATENCIO et al., Appellees. No. 19682. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Dec. 1, 1966. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division; William M. Byrne, Judge. Saul Ruskin, Palm Springs, Francis H. O'Neill, William G. Coskran, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants. Raymond C. Simpson, Laurence M. Watson, Long Beach, Cal., James Hollowell, Palm Springs, Cal., for appellees. Before CHAMBERS, BARNES, and ELY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 The majority agrees with the reasoning of Judge Byrne in the court below. 232 F.Supp. 939 (S.D.Cal.1964). The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge (concurring): 2 I reach the same result as the majority. 3 Joseph Patrick Patencio, an Indian of the Agua Caliente band of Mission Indians, has reneged on his deal made by him and his California conservator to sell his federally allotted land at Palm Springs to the appellants. The land is still held by the United States for Patencio under congressional Indian laws administered by the Secretary of the Interior. (This concurrence…

(concurring) :

I reach the same result as the majority.

Joseph Patrick Patencio, an Indian of the Agua Caliente band of Mission Indians, has reneged on his deal made by him’ and his California conservator to sell his federally allotted land at Palm Springs to the appellants. The land is still held by the United States for Patencio under congressional Indian laws administered by the Secretary of the Interior. (This concurrence will assume familiarity with the district court opinion, Bacher et al. v. Patencio and his conservator, 232 F.Supp. 939 . Therein that court sustained a motion to dismiss appellants’ complaint wherein they were plaintiffs.)

I would affirm on a different ground, not reaching the ground relied upon by the trial court. Generally, the trial court held that under federal Indian law Patencio could do with impunity just what he has done.

The Secretary’s delegate under applicable statutes found the sale fair to the Indian and eventually approved it. But the Secretary has declined to issue his deed to Patencio because Patencio, not his guardian, has requested the Secretary not to issue it. At all times pertinent to

this case, Patencio has had a conservator, a…