Eastern Cherokees v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 June 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 234,234 |
| Citation | 225 U.S. 572,56 L.Ed. 1212,32 S.Ct. 707 |
| Parties | EASTERN CHEROKEES, Appts., v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Charles Poe and Samuel A. Putman for appellants.
Assistant Attorney General Thompson for appellee.
The controversy here to be considered arises in this way: In recent years there was litigated in the court of claims and this court a claim against the United States, arising under treaties with the Cherokee Indians, and consisting of four items, one of which, designated as item 2, was for $1,111,284.70, with interest at 5 per cent from June 12, 1838, to the date of payment. The litigation was conducted under § 68 of the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. at L. 716, 726, chap. 1375), as construed and amplified by the act of March 3, 1903 (32 Stat. at L. 982, 996, chap. 994), and the parties were the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Cherokees, and the United States. Most of the Eastern Cherokees were members of the Cherokee Nation, but some were not, as was the case with those who remained in North Caro- lina and other adjacent states; and most of the members of the Nation were Eastern Cherokees, but some were not, as was the case with those who were known as Old Settlers. The principal questions in controversy in the litigation, so far as they are now material, were (a) whether there could be a recovery against the United States on item 2; (b) whether the recovery should be in the name of the Cherokee Nation or in that of the Eastern Cherokees; and (c) whether, if the recovery were in the name of the Cherokee Nation, it should be for the benefit of the members of the Nation, whether Eastern Cherokees or otherwise, or for the benefit of the Eastern Cherokees, whether members of the Nation or otherwise. These questions were all stoutly contested in both courts. As to the first, the Cherokee Nation and Eastern Cherokees made common cause against the United States, and as to the other two, they advanced opposing contentions. The jurisdictional acts, before mentioned, required that 'both the Cherokee Nation and said Eastern Cherokees' be made parties to the suit, and provided that if the claim were sustained the judgment should be 'in favor of the rightful claimant,' and should determine, 'as between the different claimants, to whom the judgment so rendered equitably belongs, either wholly or in part.' The acts also provided that the Cherokee Nation should be represented by attorneys to be employed and compensated in the manner prescribed in Rev. Stat. §§ 2103-2106, and that the Eastern Cherokees should be represented by attorneys employed by them, whose compensation should be fixed by the court of claims upon the termination of the suit.
The litigation was started by the Cherokee Nation, which, on January 16, 1903, had entered into a contract, conformably to Rev. Stat. §§ 2103-2106, with the late Gustavus A. Finkelnburg and others, whereby the latter were to represent the Nation as its attorneys in the prose- cution of the claim, and were to receive, as compensation for their services, 5 per cent of the first $1,000,000, or part thereof, collected, and 2 1/2 per cent of the amount collected cover and above the first $1,000,000, such compensation to be, by the proper officers of the United States, deducted from the amount recovered, and paid directly to such attorneys.
The court of claims held, and its decree was to the effect, that there should be a recovery against the United States on all the items of the claim; that the recovery on all should be in the name of the Cherokee Nation; and that the recovery on items 1, 3, and 4 should be for the benefit of the Nation, and on item 2 for the benefit of the Eastern Cherokees, whether members of the Nation or otherwise; that the proceeds of items 1, 3, and 4 should be paid or credited to the Nation, less the percentage thereof contracted by the Nation to be paid as counsel fees, and that the proceeds of item 2, 'less such counsel fees as may be chargeable against the same under the provisions of the contract with the Cherokee Nation of January 16, 1903, and such other counsel fees and expenses as may be hereafter allowed by this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1903,' should be paid to the Secretary of the Interior, to be by him distributed directly to the Eastern Cherokees, inclusive of a class spoken of as Western Cherokees. The concluding portion of the decree declared: 40 Ct. Cl. 252, 365.
From that decree the parties severally appealed to this court, the United States complaining of the recovery against it on item 2, the Cherokee Nation claiming that the recovery on that item ought not to have been declared to be for the benefit of the Eastern Cherokees, and the latter insisting (a) that the recovery on that item should have been in their name, and not in that of the Nation, (b) that the Western Cherokees, so-called, ought not to have been included among those who were to participate in the per capita distribution, and (c) that 'the court erred in charging the said fund of $1,111,284.70 and interest, to be realized from its said judgment or decree, with the fees of the attorneys for the Cherokee Nation.' This court overruled all objections to the decree, save the one relating to the inclusion of the Western Cherokees, and, after directing that the provision for the per capita distribution be so modified as to confine it to the Eastern Cherokees, whether east or west of the Missippi, exclusive of the Old Settlers, affirmed the decree, with that modification. 202 U. S. 101, 50 L. ed. 949, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 588.
In passing upon the question whether the recovery on item 2 was in the name of the rightful claimant, this court said: 'The Cherokee Nation, as such, had no interest in the claim, but officially represented the Eastern Cherokees.' And again: 'We concur with the court of claims in the wisdom of rendering judgment in favor of the Cherokee Nation, subject to the limitation that the amount thereof should be paid to the Secretary of the Interior, to be distributed directly to the parties entitled to it.'
In disposing of the insistence that the proceeds arising from that item ought not to have been charged with any fee for the attorneys for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pickup v. Dist. Court of Nowata Cnty.
...corporation when that state was admitted into the Union.” 225 U.S. at 571. The Supreme Court accepted the corporation's argument. See 225 U.S. at 572. The Supreme Court reasoned: The corporation laws of Arkansas were put in force in Indian territory by the act of February 18, 1901, 31 Stat.......
-
Anthony v. Baker
...the district court correctly determined it was bound by that decision as the law of the case. Eastern Cherokees v. United States, 225 U.S. 572, 582, 32 S.Ct. 707, 711, 56 L.Ed. 1212 (1912) ("When a case has been once decided by this court on appeal, and remanded to the circuit court, whatev......
-
Luminous Unit Co. v. Freeman-Sweet Co.
...291, 40 L. Ed. 414; United States v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n, 236 U. S. 200, 35 S. Ct. 408, 59 L. Ed. 535; Eastern Cherokees v. United States, 225 U. S. 582, 32 S. Ct. 707, 56 L. Ed. 1212; Illinois v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 184 U. S. 92, 22 S. Ct. 300, 46 L. Ed. 440; Bell v. Arledge, 219 F.......
-
Plainfield-Union Water Co., Application of
...of Illinois ex rel. Hunt v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 184 U.S. 77, 22 S.Ct. 300, 46 L.Ed. 440 (1902); Eastern Cherokees v. United States, 225 U.S. 572, 32 S.Ct. 707, 56 L.Ed. 1212 (1912). The difference is between a remand with specific limitations and general directions for a rehearing. Roger......