Case ID: us-ct-cl_24/html/0513-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Weldon. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JEAN LOUIS LEGARE v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 15713.
    Decided November 4, 1889. ]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The commanding- officer of a post on the frontier tells the claimant that he has no authority to contract for services rendered or supplies furnished in bringing Indians back from Canada, but he thinks the Government will pay a reasonable compensation. The claimant, in pursuance of the policy of both Governments, brings back a large number of Sitting Bull’s tribe. He is paid in part by the Canadian but not by the American Government.
    An assurance by a military officer that if the claimant will render service and furnish supplies for bringing back Indians from Canada, pursuant to a policy adopted by both powers, the Government will probably pay him a reasonable compensation, coupled with a warning that he, the officer, has no power to contract, does not constitute a contract, and service so rendered is not alegal demand.
    
      The Reporteras statement of the case:
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. In the years 1881 and 1882 the claimant was an Indian trader at Willow Branch, Wood Mountain, in the Northwest Territory of Canada, and resided at said place.
    II. In said years a large number of Indians, who were a part of the force of Sitting Bull (which before said time had crossed from the United States into the territory of Canada) were encamped near the place of business and residence of said claimant.
    III. During said time Maj. D. H. Brotherton, of the United States Army, was in command of the military forces of the United States at Fort Buford, in the Territory of Dakota, a a point about 150 miles south of said Wood Mountain.
    IV. The Indians had become before said time, and were at the time aforesaid, very troublesome to said claimant because of their condition of want and poverty. They had been near said place for several years, and from the time they fled from the United States, after the battle of “Little Big Horn ” in the year 1876.
    Y. The United States adopted the policy before said time of inducing the Indians to return to the United States, and the Canadian Government was also desirous of having them return to the United States.
    YI. In pursuance of that policy the said claimant, in the latter part of the year 1880, had negotiations with the military authorities of the United States, looking to an effort upon the part of the claimant to induce the Indians then under the command of Sitting Bull to return to the United States.
    VII. From the 1st of May, 1881, and up to the 3d of July, 1881, the said claimant brought into said Fort Buford 235 Indians, including Sitting Bull. During the trip of said Indians from said place in Canada to said Fort Buford they were subsisted by said claimant, and their march superintended by him. Several trips were made by claimant bringing in the different squads of Indians, amounting to said 235.
    VIII. In the interviews, both before and after the return of said Indians h-ad commenced, as aforesaid, the said Major Brotherton, acting on behalf of the United States, told said claimant that he had no authority to contract on behalf of the United States to pay him for services rendered or supplies furnished the Indians during their return, but that he thought the Government would pay him a reasonable compensation for his services, provisions, and clothing furnished the Indians. That statement was received by claimant without dissent or objection.
    IX. The claimant made a statement of his agency and expenditure in the removal of the Indians to the Canadian government, and was paid by that government the sum of $2,000.
    X. Services of removing the Indians commenced about the 1st of May, 1881, and were completed by the 3d of July, 1881. The provisions for the subsistence and clothing and transportation were furnished between said periods.
    
      Mr. R. A. Burton for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Soward for the defendants.
   Weldon. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claim is founded upon a condition of facts incident to the return of “ Sitting Bull” and his warriors to the United States from Canada, in the year 1881, preparatory to their surrender as a part of the force engaged in the battle of “ Little Big Horn,” in which General Ouster was killed. The claimant is a citizen of the Dominion of Canada; and resided at the time of said return at Willow Branch, Wood Mountain, which is situated in the province of Manitoba, about 150 miles north of Fort Buford, in the Territory of Dakota.

The following are the material allegations of the petition on which claimant seeks to recover:

“ 2. That during the years of 1881 and 1882, after the escape of ‘Sitting Bull’ and his band of Indians from the United States, petitioner, by the direction of the commander of the post of the United States army at Fort Buford, Dakota, undertook to secure the return and surrender to the United States of said Indians, which undertaking he accomplished; that for said work he claims from the United States for money expended, stores and supplies furnished, and for services Tendered on behalf of defendant, the sum of thirteen thousand four hundred and twelve ($13,412) dollars. An itemized bill of his claim is as follows: '

(1) 1881, April 20. Provisions, tobacco, and pipes furnished “Sitting Bull” and followers. $350.00

(2) Transportation and board for Indians, from Wood Mountain, Canada, to Et. Buford, Dakota Territory, 150 miles, at $32 per Indian:

1881, April 26, 16 Iudians. 512.00

1881, May 22, 32 Indians. 1,024.00

1881, July, 11, 200 Indians. 6,‘400.00

(3) Transportation and board of Indiansfrom Ft. Buford, Dakota, to Wood Mountain, Canada, 150 miles, at $32 per Indian:

1881, May 4, four Indians. $128. 00

1881, June 1, tliree Indiana. 96.00

1881, July 19, one Indian. 32.00

(4) Provisions furnished 12 lodges of Indians, about 50 or 60 persons, from April 26 to July 2,1881. 990.00

(5)1881, July 2. Provisions and-tobacco furnished “Sitting Bull” and followers, 300 Indians. 225.00

(6) 1881, July 3. Twelve sacksof flour furnished “ Sitting Bull” and three headmen, at $12:. 144.00

(7) 1881, July 11. One revolver to “Sitting Bull”. 15.00

(8) 1881, July 11. One looking glass for “ Sitting Bull”.— 25.00

(9) 1881, July 11. To one lodge. 12.00

(10) 1882, April 12. Board and clothing for one Indian, 9 months at $40... 360.00

(11) 1882, April 20. One year’s services... 3,000.00

(12) 1882, April 22. One pony, turned over to scout. 45.00

(13) Use of pony from Aug. 25, ’81, to Apr. 22, ’82. 54.00'

Total amount claimed. 13,412.00

Conceding tbe right of the post commander to make a contract, binding on the United States, for. the services and supplies alleged, the petition is deficient in not alleging such a contract.

But as no point has been made by the defense on the sufficiency of the pleading, we, have considered the claim on its merits.

In the decision of this case, it is not necessary to examine the right of the post commander to make a contract, such as is attempted to be alleged in the petition, as the facts found, do not warrant the legal inference, that a contract was made.

The eighth finding, discloses the negotiations and understanding of the parties. Major Brotherton, acting on behalf of the United States, told said claimant that he (Brotherton) had no authority to contract, on'behalf of the United States to pay him for services rendered or supplies furnished the Indians, during their return, but that he thought the Government, would pay him a reasonable compensation, for his time and supplies; and that statement, was received by claimant without dissent or objection.

That finding, disposes of the claim as a legal demand against the United States, cognizable in this court.

It will also be seen by the date of the services and the delivery of the supplies, that the statute of limitations had barred the most of the claim, when the suit was commenced.

It is the judgment of the court, that the petition be dismissed.