United States v. Preston

Decision Date16 March 1953
Docket Number12962.,No. 13103,13103
Citation202 F.2d 740
PartiesUNITED STATES et al. v. PRESTON et al. (two cases).
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Wm. Amory Underhill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Walter S. Binns, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., Irl D. Brett, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., Roger P. Marquis and John C. Harrington, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

John W. Preston, Oliver O. Clark, David D. Sallee, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.

Before STEPHENS and ORR, Circuit Judges, and McCORMICK, District Judge.

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.

The appeals in these actions concern attorney fees for services rendered certain persons of the Palm Springs Band of Mission Indians. We set out in a note at the end of this opinion citation of the several court decisions and opinions, with topical reference. Suffice it to say that the Indian clients of appellees were awarded allotments through the litigation and the attorneys were awarded fees in accordance with a given percentage of the value of the allotments, and liens were impressed upon the allotted lands for payment of the fees. Upon appeal to this court the employment of attorneys was upheld but payments upon percentages of the value of the allotted lands recovered, were held void. We found that the statute, authorizing the suits, did not leave the Indians free to employ attorneys except upon a quantum meruit basis, and we affirmed the right of the court to impress liens on the lands for the sums found as reasonable and due. Upon remand, District Judge Cavanah, in case No. 12962 (Eleuteria Brown Arenas), and Judge Mathes in case No. 13103 (Lee Arenas), heard evidence and fixed sums as the reasonable value of the services rendered, and impressed liens upon the land therefor.

The government presents several points upon which it contends reversal of the judgments must be ordered. One of the points is that the trial courts had no legal right to impress the liens upon the lands. We are satisfied that our affirmance of the right of the trial courts to impress liens upon the lands to secure the payment of reasonable attorney fees was right, and now reaffirm it.

One of the most important elements that goes to the make-up of a quantum meruit award is the value of the issue litigated. Appellants raise several questions as to the land value-evidence received in each case, which would be highly important if the cases were in eminent domain. And, too, these questions would be highly important if the fee to be fixed should be through a percentage-of-value formula. Neither is the case here. The judge needs only the approximate value of the land in order to estimate the effect the element of value should have in fixing a reasonable fee. We think the judge in each case accepted the best evidence offered for the purpose and applied such weight to it as he thought proper.

Another point made is of very considerable importance. It is: Should the allotted lands be valued as though free from United States governmental restrictions? Allotments are held under governmental trust, and certain restrictions, which we set out in the margin.1 In remanding these cases to the district court for determination of attorney fees on a quantum meruit basis, we said, 181 F.2d 62, 67: "The district court should have proceeded expressly to fix the dollar value of the services performed as the basis for the sum secured by the lien and in so doing should have considered and determined the value of the thing secured by the litigation, namely, the reasonable value of the Indian's interest in the allotted land under the trust patent, as one of the elements to be taken into consideration." The Indian in each case will get the fee simple title to his allotted land, including possession and the unrestricted ownership of any income produced therefrom. Restrictions on alienation of and encumbrance on the land are fully set out in footnote 1.

It is certainly true that if the value of the lands were being fixed in transfer in the real estate market, the restriction on alienation would undoubtedly depress the market value. The Indian wanted his allotment, and the attorneys were successful in getting it for him. He knew, and the attorneys knew, it would be with the restrictions. But the restrictions are for the sole benefit of the Indian. The restrictions are not interests owned by another which could be cancelled or modified for a price. They constitute a sort of bond by the government to the Indian that his property cannot be frittered away, and it will not be presumed that the government's supervision of any transfer of the land will be arbitrary or to the detriment of the ward. Notwithstanding the restrictions, all income from the land is free from restrictions. It certainly is not unreasonable to believe that, should it appear to be good business, the government would consent to a sale though the proceeds might well be protected by the government. The courts were right in finding from witnesses the approximate value of the fee title to the land as one of the important elements in arriving at sums of money which would fairly compensate the attorneys for the skill they used, for the time they employed, and for the chances they took, of being compensated at all for their services.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Preston v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 30, 1960
    ...91 L.Ed. 1853; Hatchitt v. United States, 9 Cir., 1946, 158 F.2d 754; Arenas v. Preston, 9 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 62; United States v. Preston, 9 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 740. ...
  • Schlesinger v. Teitelbaum, 73-1091.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • March 9, 1973
    ...Contingent Fees for Legal Services,3 pp. 23 & 44;4 Cappel v. Adams, 434 F.2d 1278, 1279-1280 (5th Cir. 1970); United States v. Preston, 202 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1953)—Indian tribes not allowed to enter contingent fee contracts for certain claims. In the Cappel case, supra, Judge Wisdom used t......
  • Arneson v. National Auto. and Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 1956
    ...value of the land in order to estimate the effect the element of value should have in fixing a reasonable fee.' United States v. Preston, 9 Cir., 202 F.2d 740, 741. The amount for which Arenson was sued was $255.16, plus costs. So far as disclosed by this record he was interested in one thi......
  • Standard Galvanizing Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 10705.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 17, 1953
    ... ... STANDARD GALVANIZING CO ... COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ... No. 10705 ... United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit ... March 17, 1953.        Rayford W. Lemley, John ... ...

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