Seneca Nation of Indians v. Appleby

• Decision Date: 09 November 1909
• Citation: 196 N.Y. 318,89 N.E. 835
• Parties: SENECA NATION OF INDIANS v. APPLEBY.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

196 N.Y. 318

89 N.E. 835

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

v.APPLEBY.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 9, 1909.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Action by the Seneca Nation of Indians against Charles E. Appleby. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (127 App. Div. 770,112 N. Y. Supp. 177), affirming a judgment rendered on a directed verdict at Trial Term for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.

Adelbert Moot and Eugene Van Voorhis, for appellant.

William Harison and George Waddington, for respondent.

CULLEN, C. J.

The action was brought by the plaintiff under article 5, tit. 1, c. 14, Code Civ. Proc., to compel the determination of a claim to real property. The complaint alleged possession and ownership in fee of lands commonly known as the Allegany and Cattaraugus reservations, situated in the counties bearing those names; that the plaintiff had been in possession of said real estate more than one year, claiming to own them in fee; that the defendant unjustly claimed an estate or interest in such property by and under various mesne conveyances from the state of Massachusetts, and prayed judgment that the defendant and all claiming under him be barred from all claim, estate, or interest in said real estate. The defendant answered, denying both the title and possession of the plaintiff, and set forth his own claim as successor in interest of the right of preemption of the state of Massachusetts to own the lands in fee subject only to the plaintiff's right to occupancy. The action was brought on for trial before the court and jury. At the conclusion of the evidence, each party asked for the direction of a verdict in its favor. By consent the court reserved its decision; it being stipulated that thereafter the court might direct a verdict in favor of the party deemed entitled thereto as if the same had been done on the trial of the action. The defendant's motion was based on these grounds: That the defendant was the owner in fee of the lands in dispute, and entitled to the pre-emption of the plaintiff's tribal right of occupancy; that the plaintiff had not been in possession for one year before the commencement of the action, or during any time, of the lands in suit; that the plaintiff had a mere tribal right of occupancy; that the plaintiff had not for any time claimed an estate in fee or for life or for a term of years. Subsequently the court directed that a verdict be entered as if given by the jury on trial that ‘the plaintiff has no cause of action and the defendant is the owner in fee of the premises subject to the right of occupancy of the Seneca Nation of Indians, which right of occupancy will cease only with the dissolution of said nation or its consent to sell to the owner of the right of pre-emption, and that defendant is possessed of the right of pre-emption of such right of occupancy.’ From the judgment entered upon this verdict the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division, where the judgment was affirmed by a divided court.

The main question involved in this controversy is the respective rights and title of the Seneca Nation of Indians and of the defendant as successor in interest and assignee of the right conferred upon the state of Massachusetts under the treaty made between that state and this state in the year 1786. The question has been argued before us by the respective counsel of the parties with great ability and an industry of research not merely in judicial decisions, but in historical lore that could not well be surpassed. Interesting as the question is, we shall not discuss it, for we are entirely clear that the courts below had no power to determine it in this action, nor have we the power to review on this appeal the merits of the decision of it made by them. As is well known, the status of the Indian nations or tribes is anomalous. They are not citizens of the state, and their tribes, though not treated as independent foreign nations, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state to the same extent as its citizens. It is the settled law that neither the tribe nor its individual members can maintain an action to recover the property of the tribe without special authority. Johnson v. Long Island R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 462, 56 N. E. 992. No general statute giving such a right and applicable to all Indians has been enacted, but there have been passed acts authorizing certain Indian nations to sue in our courts for certain purposes and to a certain extent. The earliest relative to the rresent plaintiff was enacted in 1845. Laws 1845, p. 146, c. 150. From time to time subsequently other laws were enacted to which it is unnecessary to refer, for the right of the plaintiff to maintain this action, if such a right exists, must be found in the present Indian Law. Section 55 of that statute (Laws 1892, p. 1588, c. 679, as amended by Laws 1893, p. 423, c. 229, § 1), so far as material, is as follows: ‘Prosecution of actions and disposition of recovery.-The Seneca Nation may prosecute by the name of ‘The Seneca Nation of Indians,’ actions and proceedings to protect their rights and interests to the Allegany, Cattaraugus and ‘oil spring reservations,’ and may maintain an action of ejectment to recover the possession of any part of such reservations unlawfully withheld from them, and an action for injury to the soil of such reservations, or for cutting down or removing or converting timber or wood growing or being thereon, or an action of replevin for timber or wood removed therefrom, and for the recovery of damage for injury to the common property or rights of such Indians, or for the recovery of money, property or effects, due or to become due, or belonging, or in any way appertaining to such Indians in common, or to the Seneca Nation; and in every such suit, action or proceeding in relation to lands or real estate, situated within the said reservations, the Seneca Nation may allege a seisin in fee; and every...