In re Sanborn, No. 11

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSHIRAS
Citation13 S.Ct. 577,148 U.S. 222,37 L.Ed. 429
Decision Date20 March 1893
Docket NumberNo. 11
PartiesIn re SANBORN

148 U.S. 222
13 S.Ct. 577
37 L.Ed. 429
In re SANBORN.
No. 11.
March 20, 1893.

Charles King, George A. King, and William B. King, for petitioner.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for respondent.

Mr. Justice SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

A claim of John B. Sanborn, presented in the department of the interior, for certain fees under a contract with Sisseton

Page 223

and Wahpeton Indians, of 10 per cent. of the amount appropriated for said Indians by section 27 of the Indian appropriation act of March 3, 1891, (26 St. p. 989,) was referred by the secretary of that department, with the consent of the claimant, to the court of claims, in pursuance of section 12 of the act of March 3, 1887, (1 Supp. Rev. St. [2d Ed.] 561.) That court having concluded that Sanborn was not entitled to recover, and having reported its findings of fact and conclusions of law to the department, Sanborn, on the 6th day of July, 1892, asked for the allowance of an appeal to the supreme court of the United States. This application, being made in a vacation of the court of claims, was heard and denied by the chief justice, but was renewed and argued before all the judges on November 2, 1892, and was denied by the court, which adopted the opinion of the chief justice previously filed upon the motion before him.

Thereupon Sanborn filed in this court his petition praying that a writ of mandamus be allowed to the chief justice and judges of the court of claims, commanding them to allow his appeal as prayed for.

The question for us to answer is whether, where a claim or matter is pending in one of the executive departments which involves controverted questions of fact or law, and the head of such department, with the consent of the claimant, has transmitted the claim, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and documents pertaining thereto, to the court of claims, and that court has reported its findings of fact and law to the department by which it was transmitted, the claimant has a right by appeal to bring the action of that court before us for review.

The petitioner does not complain of any illegality on the part of the court below in dealing with his claim. He concedes that the action of that court had been invoked with his consent. What he complains of is the frfusal of the court to allow his appeal, and we learn from the opinion of the court that its refusal to allow the appeal was not put upon any irregularity or defect in the claim, or in the application for the allowance of an appeal, but upon its view that the

Page 224

proceedings before it were not the subject of appeal to this court.

We must find an answer to the question thus put to us by a construction of the act of March 3, 1887, read in the light of the previous legislation establishing the court of claims, and regulating the subject of appeals from its judgments to this court.

This subject came for the first time before this court in the case of Gordon v. U. S., 2 Wall. 561, wherein it was held that, as the law then stood, no appeal would lie from the court of claims to this court. The reasons for this conclusion are stated in the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, reported in the appendix to 117 U. S. 697, and interesting as his last judicial utterance. Briefly stated, the court held that, as the so-called 'judgments' of the court of claims were not obligatory upon congress or upon the executive department of the government, but were merely opinions, which might be acted upon or disregarded by congress or the departments, and which this court had no power to compel the court below to execute, such judgments could not be deemed an exercise of judicial power, and could not, therefore,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 practice notes
  • U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., No. 89-15930
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 7, 1992
    ...CLIB were not listed. A.K. Management Co. v. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, 789 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting In re Sanborn, 148 U.S. 222, 227, 13 S.Ct. 577, 579, 37 L.Ed. 429 (1893)). 5 Accordingly, under the clear and unambiguous language of sections 81 and 84, both the contr......
  • Western Shoshone Business Council For and on Behalf of Western Shoshone Tribe of Duck Valley Reservation v. Babbitt, No. 92-4062
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 27, 1993
    ...757. It is well settled that Sec. 81 was "intended to protect the Indians from improvident and unconscionable contracts." In re Sanborn, 148 U.S. 222, 227, 13 S.Ct. 577, 579, 37 L.Ed. 429 (1893). Several courts have, on this basis, denied standing to challenge BIA decisions under Sec. 81 to......
  • Gubiensio-Ortiz v. Kanahele, GUBIENSIO-ORTI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 15, 1988
    ...the judges out of court as commissioners." Id. at 52. This holding of the Supreme Court was noted in subsequent cases. See In re Sanborn, 148 U.S. 222, 224, 13 S.Ct. 577, 578, 37 L.Ed. 429 (1893); Florida v. Georgia, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 478, 505, 15 L.Ed. 181 (1854). Justice Iredell, who appa......
  • Contour Spa at the Hard Rock, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., No. 11–11997.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • August 30, 2012
    ...and unconscionable contracts.’ ” Wis. Winnebago Bus. Comm. v. Koberstein, 762 F.2d 613, 617 (7th Cir.1985) (quoting In re Sanborn, 148 U.S. 222, 227, 13 S.Ct. 577, 37 L.Ed. 429 (1893)); see alsoH.R.Rep. No. 106–501, at 1–2 (2000), reprinted in 2000 U.S.C.C.A.N. 69, 69 (“Section 81 of Title ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
50 cases
  • U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., No. 89-15930
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 7, 1992
    ...CLIB were not listed. A.K. Management Co. v. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, 789 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting In re Sanborn, 148 U.S. 222, 227, 13 S.Ct. 577, 579, 37 L.Ed. 429 (1893)). 5 Accordingly, under the clear and unambiguous language of sections 81 and 84, both the contr......
  • Western Shoshone Business Council For and on Behalf of Western Shoshone Tribe of Duck Valley Reservation v. Babbitt, No. 92-4062
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 27, 1993
    ...757. It is well settled that Sec. 81 was "intended to protect the Indians from improvident and unconscionable contracts." In re Sanborn, 148 U.S. 222, 227, 13 S.Ct. 577, 579, 37 L.Ed. 429 (1893). Several courts have, on this basis, denied standing to challenge BIA decisions under Sec. 81 to......
  • Gubiensio-Ortiz v. Kanahele, GUBIENSIO-ORTI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 15, 1988
    ...the judges out of court as commissioners." Id. at 52. This holding of the Supreme Court was noted in subsequent cases. See In re Sanborn, 148 U.S. 222, 224, 13 S.Ct. 577, 578, 37 L.Ed. 429 (1893); Florida v. Georgia, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 478, 505, 15 L.Ed. 181 (1854). Justice Iredell, who appa......
  • Contour Spa at the Hard Rock, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., No. 11–11997.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • August 30, 2012
    ...and unconscionable contracts.’ ” Wis. Winnebago Bus. Comm. v. Koberstein, 762 F.2d 613, 617 (7th Cir.1985) (quoting In re Sanborn, 148 U.S. 222, 227, 13 S.Ct. 577, 37 L.Ed. 429 (1893)); see alsoH.R.Rep. No. 106–501, at 1–2 (2000), reprinted in 2000 U.S.C.C.A.N. 69, 69 (“Section 81 of Title ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Administrative Justice: Formal Prescription and Informal Adjudication
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 14-3, September 1961
    • September 1, 1961
    ...anddistinguished from "the judicial power of the United States" under Article III. 3 I.CC. v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 444 (1894); In re Sanborn, 148 U.S. 222 (1893); U.S. v. 13 How. 40, 48 (1852); American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 (1828); Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409, 410 (1792). O’Dono......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT