Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/191/93/case.html
Timestamp: 2013-06-20 00:01:03
Document Index: 585579360

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 161', '§ 11', '§ 33', '§ 32', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 688', '§ 716']

Ex Parte Joins - 191 U.S. 93 (1903) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Supreme Court > Volume 191 > Ex Parte Joins - 191 U.S. 93 > Case	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
Ex Parte Joins - 191 U.S. 93 (1903)
Case	U.S. Supreme CourtEx Parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903)Ex Parte JoinsNo. 12, OriginalArgued October 19, 1903Decided November 9, 1903191 U.S. 93PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND FOR CERTIORARI
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Page 191 U. S. 99
The facts alleged and not denied may be summed up as follows: Page 191 U. S. 100 by the Act of June 10, 1896, c. 398, 29 Stat. 321, 339, Congress authorized a commission to the five civilized tribes of Indians, commonly called the Dawes Commission, to hear and determine the rights of persons claiming citizenship in any of those nations, with an appeal to the United States courts in the territory. The petitioner applied to the commission, and, his application being rejected, appealed to the United States court, and there, on March 8, 1898, got a decree in his favor, declaring him to be a member of the Chickasaw Nation. A bill of review brought by the Chickasaw Nation is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory. After the decree, and before the act of 1902, and, for anything to the contrary in the petition, before the decision of this Court next to be mentioned, the petitioner entered a tract of Chickasaw land, and made improvements costing $15,000. For this he invokes the Act of June 28, 1898, c. 517, § 161, 30 Stat. 495, 505, 507, and he contends that that act, as well as the act of 1902, § 11, gave him a right of property in common with the other members of the tribe. Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1.
The Indian nations, still being dissatisfied, there followed the agreement and the act of 1902 first mentioned in this statement. By § 33, the Choctaw and Chickasaw Citizenship Court was created. By § 32, it was given appellate jurisdiction over all judgments of the courts in the Indian Territory rendered under the above-mentioned act of 1896, admitting persons to citizenship or to enrollment as citizens in any of the said nations. It is admitted that these sections are valid, but it is Page 191 U. S. 101 contended that § 31, upon which the decree rests, it void. By that section it is provided that the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations may file a bill in the new court to annul all the said judgments or decrees of the United States courts, on the ground that notice should have been given to both nations, whereas it was given only to one, or on the ground that the proceedings should have been confined to a review of the action of the Dawes Commission on the evidence submitted to that commission, and should not have extended to a trial de novo of the question of citizenship. The suit was to be confined to a determination of these questions of law. In case the judgment or decrees should be annulled, parties deprived of citizenship were empowered to transfer the proceedings in their cases to the Citizenship Court for such proceedings as ought to have been had in the United States courts. Several thousand persons being concerned, ten persons admitted to citizenship were to be made defendants and served with process, and there was to be a general notice, also, by publication, with liberty to any person so situated to become a party. A bill was filed, and after proceedings in conformity to the statute, a decree was rendered, annulling all the said judgments or decrees on both the above grounds.
On these facts, the petitioner contends that § 31 is void because it provides for a personal judgment, the annulling of the decree obtained by him, without personal service, because Congress has no power to annul or to provide for the annulling of Page 191 U. S. 102 a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, not alleged to have been obtained by fraud, and because the annulling of the judgment deprives the petitioner of property rights without due process of law.
It is unnecessary to state the objections to the law more in detail, because we are of opinion that the writ must be denied irrespective of these questions. We need not consider whether the jurisdiction of this Court to grant a writ of prohibition to the district courts is confined to cases where those courts are "proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." Rev.Stat. § 688. Ex Parte City Bank, 3 How. 292, 44 U. S. 322; Ex Parte Gordon, 1 Black 503; Ex Parte Graham, 10 Wall. 541; Ex Parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68. As to the jurisdiction in other cases, whether inherent or under Rev.Stat. § 716, see In re Rice, 155 U. S. 396; In re Huguley Manufacturing Co., 184 U. S. 297; In re Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443, 165 U. S. 462. Again, we need not consider whether the Citizenship Court is a court in such a sense as to be subject to prohibition. See In re Vidal, 179 U. S. 126; Gordon v. United States, 2 Wall. 561. However these things may be, it is clear that the writ will not issue after the cause is ended, and that the cause in the Citizenship Court was ended before the present application was heard.