Crabtree v. Madden, 184.
| Decision Date | 20 February 1893 |
| Docket Number | 184. |
| Citation | 54 F. 426 |
| Parties | CRABTREE et al. v. MADDEN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
George E. Nelson, for plaintiffs, in error.
N. B Maxey, for defendant in error.
Statement by SANBORN, Circuit Judge:
This is a writ of error to reverse a judgment sustaining a demurrer to a complaint and dismissing an action brought in the United States court in the Indian Territory by the Creek tribe of Indians and William F. Crabtree, as their national tax collector, plaintiffs in error, against William A. Madden the defendant in error, to collect a tax imposed on him by that tribe. The allegations of the complaint are that William F. Crabtree is a member and the national tax collector of the Creek tribe of Indians, and that it is his duty to collect all the taxes due the tribe; that William A. Madden is not a member of the tribe, but is a citizen of the United States who resides in the tribe, and carries on the business of a builder of houses and manufacturer of furniture as a licensed trader therein; that an annual tax of $200 is imposed by law for the use of the tribe upon all persons not members thereof who do the business of licensed traders therein, and that the defendant has conducted his business in the tribe for a year and refuses to pay the tax. The prayer of the complaint is for a judgment for the amount of the tax. Three grounds of demurrer were stated: That the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter or the parties; and that the plaintiff had no legal capacity to sue. In this court the defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ on the ground that the only question presented by the record is the question of the jurisdiction of the court below, and that the jurisdiction of the supreme court of the United States to review that question is exclusive.
Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.
SANBORN Circuit Judge, after stating the facts as above, .
Two principal questions are presented by this record: Has this court jurisdiction to review the judgment below? and has the United States court in the Indian Territory jurisdiction to entertain an action for, and to enforce by its judgment the collection of, a tax imposed by a tribe of Indians residing in that territory, upon a citizen of the United States residing in the tribe?
As to the first question, section 13 of March 3, 1891, creating the circuit courts of appeals, (26 St.p. 826,) provides that writs of error may be taken and prosecuted from the decision of the United States court in the Indian Territory to the supreme court of the United States or to the circuit court of appeals in the eighth circuit, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the circuit or district courts of the United States under that act. Section 5 of the act provides that appeals or writs of error may be taken from the district courts or the existing circuit courts direct to the supreme court in six classes of cases, one of which is ' Section 6 of the same act provides that the circuit court of appeals shall 'exercise appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal or by writ of error final decision in the district court and the existing circuit courts in all cases other than those provided for in the preceding section, unless otherwise provided by law.'
The contention of counsel for defendant is that the jurisdiction of the court below is the only question in issue in this case; that the supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine that question under section 5, and hence this court has no jurisdiction to consider it. It is proper to notice that this is a writ of error to review a final judgment; that it brings up the entire case; and that, if this court was of the opinion that the court below had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties, there would remain for determination the question whether or not the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; so that it can hardly be said that the question as to the jurisdiction of the court below is the only question here in issue. But if it was, and the question was clearly presented whether or not this court has jurisdiction to determine that question when a writ of error or appeal from a final judgment or decree, which brings up the whole case, presents to this court the single question of the jurisdiction of the court below, the decision of the supreme court has settled that question adversely to the contention of the defendant. In McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661, 668, 12 S.Ct. 118,-- a case from the United States court in the Indian Territory,-- in which all the provisions of the act creating this court that are material in this case were carefully considered, that court declared the right and privilege of the defeated party upon the entry of a final judgment in the court below to be as follows:
The result is that when the party against whom a final judgment has been rendered in a district or circuit court of the United States elects to take his writ of error to a circuit court of appeals upon the whole case, that court has jurisdiction to determine it, whether the question of the jurisdiction of the court below is the sole question or but one of many questions in issue under the writ. The plaintiffs in error have made their election to take their writ of error to this court upon the whole case, and the motion to dismiss the writ is denied.
The second question is whether the court below had jurisdiction of this action. The plaintiff Crabtree had no better right to maintain the action than the Creek tribe of Indians. The complain alleges that the tax was imposed for the use of the tribe, and that Crabtree was its collector, hence he was not the real party in interest in the action; and, if the tribe could not maintain it, he could not, because he had no right he did not derive from the tribe. The connection of Crabtree with the case will not, therefore, be further noticed, and the only question is, can a tribe of Indians residing in the Indian Territory maintain an action in the federal court in that territory to collect a tax imposed by the tribe upon a citizen of the United States who resides therein? Before the jurisdiction of that court to entertain such an action can be maintained, two propositions must be clearly established: First, that congress has granted to the court below the authority to entertain and determine actions of this character, because that court, in common with all the federal courts, is limited in its jurisdiction to the cases and proceedings which congress has granted it authority to consider and act upon; and, second, that the Creek tribe of Indians has expressly or by clear implication prescribed an action at law in the federal court as the method of enforcing the tax here in question.
The limits of the jurisdiction conferred by congress on the court below are prescribed by the acts of March 1, 1889, (25 St.p 783, c. 333, § 6,) and of May 2, 1890, (26 St.p. 93, c. 182, § 29.) So far as it is material here, the former act provides 'that that court shall have jurisdiction in all civil cases between citizens of the United States who are residents of the Indian Territory, or between citizens of the United States, or of any state or territory therein, and any citizen of or person or persons residing or found in the Indian Territory, and when the value of the thing in controversy or damages or money claimed shall amount to one hundred dollars or more. ' The latter act, so far as it is material to the determination of this question, provides that that court, in addition to the jurisdiction conferred thereon by the former act, shall 'have and exercise within the limits of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe Amoco Production Company v. Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe
...557, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832); Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 231 F.2d 89, 92, 99 (CA8 1956); Crabtree v. Madden, 54 F. 426, 428-429 (CA8 1893); Cohen, The Spanish Origin of Indian Rights in the Law of the United States, in The Legal Conscience 230, 234 (L. Cohen ed. 1......
-
Brown Bark I, L.P. v. Traverse City Light & Power Dept.
...(citing Meriwether, 102 U.S. 472, and Lane Cty. v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71, 19 L.Ed. 101 (Dec. Term 1868), and Crabtree v. Madden, 54 F. 426 (8th Cir.1893)). To put it another way, the lighting charges became a debt due and payable to TCPL by virtue of a voluntary contract which Traver......
-
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, s. 78-1154
...599, 27 S.Ct. 777, 51 L.Ed. 334 (1906); Maxey v. Wright, 105 F. 1003 (8th Cir.), aff'g 3 Ind.T. 243, 54 S.W. 807 (1900); Crabtree v. Madden, 54 F. 426 (8th Cir. 1893). The Attorney General of the United States also approved similar taxes. E. g., Cherokee Indians Export Tax on Hay, 23 Op.Att......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson Shipyards Corporation
...express or implied." And see, to the same effect, United States v. Eggleston, 4 Sawy. 199, 25 Fed. Cas. 979, No. 15,027; Crabtree v. Madden, 54 F. 426, 4 C. C. A. 408; United States v. McHatton (D. C.) 266 F. 602; People v. Dummer, 274 Ill. 637, 643, 113 N. E. In McCulloch v. State of Maryl......
-
CHAPTER 8 TAXATION OF MINERALS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
...issue of Tribal taxation of non-Indian property interests located on the Reservation. Perhaps the earliest case is Crabtree v. Madden, 54 F. 426 (8th Cir. 1893). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the provisions of the Creek Treaty, in particular those authorizing the Tribe to reg......