The United States, Use of James Mackey Et Al Plaintiffs In Error v. Richard Coxe

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcLEAN
Citation15 L.Ed. 299,18 How. 100,59 U.S. 100
PartiesTHE UNITED STATES, USE OF JAMES MACKEY ET AL. PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. RICHARD S. COXE
Decision Date01 December 1855

59 U.S. 100
18 How. 100
15 L.Ed. 299
THE UNITED STATES, USE OF JAMES MACKEY ET AL.
PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
RICHARD S. COXE.
December Term, 1855

THIS case was brought up by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Chitton, for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Bradley, for the defendant.

Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the circuit court for the District of Columbia.

The action was brought against the defendant as surety in the administration bond of Austin J. Raines, administrator of Samuel Mackey, late of the Cherokee nation.

Raines received from James Mackey, Joseph Talley, and Preston T. Mackey, as administrators of Samuel Mackey, deceased, a power of attorney for them and in their names to petition the congress of the United States to settle and release the claim of the United States against the said Samuel Mackey, deceased, as principal, and John Drenner, Lewis Evans, and Hiro T. Wilson, as securities; and after the passage of any law in relation

Page 101

to said claim by congress, to receive all moneys that may be due the estate of the said Mackey, deceased, from the treasurer of the United States, and full receipts, acquittances, and relinquishments thereof to make in their name; and further, to adjust and settle with the treasurer of the United States, or other officers of the government, all other claims of said Mackey against the United States, and to receive all moneys due from the United States to said Mackey on any account whatever.

Raines came to Washington and procured a settlement of the accounts between the government and Samuel Mackey, deceased; but the treasury department refused to pay him the balance due Mackey upon the power of attorney, and required him to take out letters of administration. He thereupon applied to the orphans' court of the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, for letters of administration, which were granted upon his executing bond, with the defendant and James Reeside as sureties. He then received from the treasury the sum of $10,513.05, out of which he paid the expense of administration, and for the balance he executed the following receipt:——

'7th July, 1841. Received of Austin J. Raines, administrator of Samuel Mackey, deceased, the sum of ten thousand five hundred and thirteen dollars and five cents, being the amount due to the representatives next of kin and distributees of said Samuel Mackey, from said administrator.

Signed, JAMES MACKEY,

JOSEPH TALLEY,

PRESTON T. MACKEY.

By their attorney in fact, A. J. RAINES.'

Reeside, the co-obligor in the administration bond, having died several years ago, the process was served only on the defendant.

The declaration contained several counts, stating that the said Samuel Mackey died intestate, leaving Sarah Mackey, his widow, and James Mackey, Preston T. Mackey, William Mackey, George Mackey, Nancy Talley, wife of Joseph Talley, and Corine Mackey, all being citizens of the Cherokee nation, and that, by the laws of said Cherokee nation, the widow and children were distributees of the deceased.

The defendant filed a general plea of performance, on which issue was joined.

On the trial before the jury, among other prayers for instruction was the following: 'If the jury find from the evidence that Austin J. Raines, as administrator of Samuel Mackey, deceased, received from the treasury of the United States the sum of $10,513.05, and after deducting the expenses of administration there remained in his hands the clear sum of $10,505.20 1/2,

Page 102

and no debts of said deceased are shown payable by said administrator; and James Mackey, Joseph Talley, and Preston T. Mackey were the original administrators of said Samuel Mackey, under the laws of the Cherokee nation, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that said Raines paid said sum of $10,505.20 1/2 to said James Mackey, Joseph Talley, and Preston T. Mackey, or the survivors of them; and although the jury may find that the paper offered in evidence, purporting to be a power of attorney from said James Mackey, Joseph Talley, and Preston T. Mackey to said Raines is genuine, yet the said Raines had no authority to receipt for said parties by himself, as their attorney in fact, to himself as administrator, and that such receipt is not a payment by him as administrator of said parties; and unless such payment be proved otherwise than by such receipt, the said Raines has not performed the condition of this bond as administrator of Samuel Mackey, and the said defendant is liable in this action to the said James Mackey, Joseph Talley, and Preston T. Mackey, or the survivors of them, for the said sum of $10,505.20 1/2, with interest thereon from the date...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 practice notes
  • In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., Case No.: 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • September 5, 2018
    ...have diverging conclusions. See 127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1997). In United States ex rel. Mackey v. Coxe , 59 U.S. (18 How.) 100, 103–04, 15 L.Ed. 299 (1855), the Supreme Court "held the Cherokee nation was a territory as that term was used in a federal letters of administration statute."Wilso......
  • Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Nos. 78-1154
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • February 22, 1980
    ...for the inheritance of property. Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, 29 (, 20 S.Ct. 1, 12, 44 L.Ed. 49); United States ex rel. Mackey v. Coxe, 18 How. 100 (, 15 L.Ed. The Court in Wheeler continued: "The sovereignty that the Indian tribes retain is of a unique and limited character. It exists only......
  • Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC v. Papas (In re Greektown Holdings, LLC), Bankruptcy No. 08–53104.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • August 12, 2014
    ...It is not a foreign, but a domestic territory—a territory which originated under our constitution and laws.U.S., to Use of Mackey v. Coxe, 59 U.S. 100, 103, 18 How. 100, 15 L.Ed. 299 (1855). The Supreme Court has otherwise described Indian tribes as “domestic” in nature, echoing that the di......
  • State v. Hirsch/Friend, No. CC 99CR2684FE, 99CR1105FE; CA A109091, A108859; SC S49370, S49371.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • June 23, 2005
    ...government and the various Native American tribes. See generally United States ex rel. Mackey v. Coxe, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 100, 102-04, 15 L.Ed. 299, 300-01 (1855) (holding that Cherokee Nation is domestic territory, governed by own laws, but organized under and subject to United States Const......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
48 cases
  • In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., Case No.: 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • September 5, 2018
    ...have diverging conclusions. See 127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1997). In United States ex rel. Mackey v. Coxe , 59 U.S. (18 How.) 100, 103–04, 15 L.Ed. 299 (1855), the Supreme Court "held the Cherokee nation was a territory as that term was used in a federal letters of administration statute."Wilso......
  • Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Nos. 78-1154
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • February 22, 1980
    ...for the inheritance of property. Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, 29 (, 20 S.Ct. 1, 12, 44 L.Ed. 49); United States ex rel. Mackey v. Coxe, 18 How. 100 (, 15 L.Ed. The Court in Wheeler continued: "The sovereignty that the Indian tribes retain is of a unique and limited character. It exists only......
  • Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC v. Papas (In re Greektown Holdings, LLC), Bankruptcy No. 08–53104.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • August 12, 2014
    ...It is not a foreign, but a domestic territory—a territory which originated under our constitution and laws.U.S., to Use of Mackey v. Coxe, 59 U.S. 100, 103, 18 How. 100, 15 L.Ed. 299 (1855). The Supreme Court has otherwise described Indian tribes as “domestic” in nature, echoing that the di......
  • State v. Hirsch/Friend, No. CC 99CR2684FE, 99CR1105FE; CA A109091, A108859; SC S49370, S49371.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • June 23, 2005
    ...government and the various Native American tribes. See generally United States ex rel. Mackey v. Coxe, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 100, 102-04, 15 L.Ed. 299, 300-01 (1855) (holding that Cherokee Nation is domestic territory, governed by own laws, but organized under and subject to United States Const......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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