United States v. Heinrich
| Decision Date | 15 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4892.,4892. |
| Citation | 16 F.2d 112 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HEINRICH. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Wellington D. Rankin, U. S. Atty., Francis A. Silver, and Albert Anderson, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Helena, Mont., and Ethelbert Ward, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
W. M. Johnston and H. J. Coleman, both of Billings, Mont., for defendant in error.
Before GILBERT and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.
Section 8 of the Act of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 754), provides, among other things, that:
"All expenditures for irrigation work on the Crow reservation, Montana, heretofore or hereafter made, are hereby declared to be reimbursable under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe and shall constitute a lien against the land benefited, regardless of ownership, and including all lands which have heretofore been sold or patented."
The present action was instituted by the United States to recover the aggregate amount of several annual charges imposed by the Secretary of the Interior upon or against certain lands owned by the defendant, pursuant to the authority thus conferred. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the court below, and the government electing to stand on its complaint and refusing to plead further, a judgment of dismissal was entered. The demurrer was sustained upon the ground that the statute imposing the liability is unconstitutional and void. United States v. Heinrich (D. C.) 12 F.(2d) 938. The case has been brought here by writ of error.
After the entry of the judgment in the court below, section 8 of the Act of June 4, 1920, supra, was amended by the Act of May 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 660). The amendatory act provides, that any allotment or part of allotment provided for thereunder, irrigable from any irrigation system now in existence or hereafter constructed by the government on the reservation, shall bear its pro rata share, computed on a per acre basis, of the expenditures made from tribal funds that were used in constructing such systems, where the Indians in council had not specifically approved such expenditures, and all moneys except gratuities expended on the construction of such irrigation systems out of the appropriations from the treasury of the United States, the amount so in the aggregate to be borne to be ascertained and proclaimed by the Secretary of the Interior.
It was conceded on the argument before this court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darr v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
...513; Badger v. Hoidale, 8 Cir., 88 F.2d 208, 109 A.L.R. 798; United States v. Heinrich, D.C., 12 F.2d 938, affirmed on another point 9 Cir., 16 F. 2d 112; Preveslin v. Derby & Ansonia Developing Co., 112 Conn. 129, 151 A. 518, 70 A.L.R. 1426. Some of these cases, to be sure, related to the ......
-
Blackfeet Tribe v. Klies Livestock Company
...liens must exist when the patents are issued. United States v. Heinrich, D.C.Mont.1926, 12 F.2d 938 and cases there cited, affirmed 9 Cir., 16 F.2d 112. See also: Opinion of the Solicitor, Dept. of Interior, dated Sept. 9, 1929, (52 L.D. The requisite authority in the instant case is found ......
- Myers v. Velasquez