Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/299/417/case.html
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 20:39:25
Document Index: 568800950

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 288', '§ 282', '§ 282', '§ 350', '§ 19', '§ 8', '§ 28', '§ 18', '§ 18']

United States v. Seminole Nation (full text) :: 299 U.S. 417 (1937) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center Log In
U.S. Supreme CourtUnited States v. Seminole Nation, 299 U.S. 417 (1937)United States v. Seminole NationNo. 172Argued December 10, 1936Decided January 4, 1937299 U.S. 417CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS
1. Plaintiff contends that the petition for the writ of certiorari came too late, and that therefore this Court is without jurisdiction. The petition was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 288(b). Section 350 limits the time to three months after entry of judgment. Defendant filed timely motion for new trial which was overruled March 2, 1936. May 13, it applied for leave to file a second motion for new trial. The application stated that it was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 282, [Footnote 1] and that the motion was attached to the application. The court granted leave, and defendant, May 18, filed its second motion for a new trial. The record does not include the motion. After hearing argument, the Page 299 U. S. 420 court, June 8, overruled the motion. July 8, defendant filed petition for certiorari.
The rule expressly excepts motions under § 282 from those for the filing of which leave of court must be obtained. The statute plainly implies that, in accordance Page 299 U. S. 421 with its terms, defendant may, as of right, apply for a new trial. The record does not contain anything to indicate that it was one made upon evidence, or otherwise in accordance with statute. Cf. In re District of Columbia, 180 U. S. 250, 180 U. S. 253. In the absence of definite showing to that effect, it will not be held that the United States applied for, or that the court entertained and granted, an application for leave so expressly shown to be unnecessary. On this record, it is reasonably to be inferred, and we find, that the second motion was one filed in accordance with the rule under which application for leave was necessary, and not one authorized by the statute for the filing of which permission of the court was not needed. It is clear that the three months' period, § 350, did not commence to run until the court disposed of that motion, and did not expire until long after the defendant had filed its petition for this writ. It is well settled that the time within which application may be made for review in this Court does not commence to run until after disposition of motion for a new trial seasonably filed and entertained. Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238, 43 U. S. 240; Texas Pacific Railway Co. v. Murphy, 111 U. S. 488, 111 U. S. 489; United States v. Ellicott, 223 U. S. 524, 223 U. S. 539; Citizens' Bank v. Opperman, 249 U. S. 448, 249 U. S. 450; Morse v. United States, 270 U. S. 151, 270 U. S. 153-154; Gypsy Oil Co. v. Escoe, 275 U. S. 498. This Court has jurisdiction.
2. The jurisdiction of the lower court was limited to claims sued on before the expiration of the period within which the United States consented to be sued. It did not extend to any cause of action which was not alleged in plaintiff's original petition. As the United States may not be sued without its consent, causes of action not alleged within the period allowed may not be enforced. Finn v. United States, 123 U. S. 227, 123 U. S. 232. The amended petition was not filed within the time allowed; no cause of action was by it brought within the power of Page 299 U. S. 422 the court. Taylor Co. v. Anderson, 275 U. S. 431, 275 U. S. 438-439; Baltimore & O.S.W. R. Co. v. Carroll, 280 U. S. 491, 280 U. S. 495. The judgment may not be sustained as to any item that is not included in a cause of action set up in the original petition or that was by the findings of the lower court or otherwise put upon a ground not there alleged. Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Pet. 483, 34 U. S. 503; Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 177, 35 U. S. 209; Garland v. Davis, 4 How. 131, 45 U. S. 148. It may not be upheld as to any item that is not supported by definite findings of fact extending to all essential issues and which, unaided by statements in the court's conclusions of law or its opinion, are clearly sufficient to entitle plaintiff to recover. United States v. Esnault-Pelterie, 299 U. S. 201, 299 U. S. 207.
I. Reference is made to the act conferring jurisdiction. II. Plaintiff, for many years, was the owner of funds held in trust by defendant; there existed various treaties and agreements between plaintiff and defendant whereby the trust funds were to be managed and invested by defendant and the interest thereon paid over to the national treasurer of plaintiff. III. From and after passage of the Act of June 28, 1898, 30 Stat. 495 (called the Curtis Act), defendant impounded all funds of plaintiff, refused to further pay them to plaintiff's national treasurer, and proceeded to disburse them for various purposes. IV. The only authority given by that Act for the disbursement of plaintiff's funds is § 19. [Footnote 2] After that Act, Congress passed others giving authority for the expenditure of plaintiff's funds, but no subsequent act gave authority for the expenditure Page 299 U. S. 423 of the funds hereinafter mentioned. VI. From
This petition does not include any cause of action that accrued prior to July 1, 1898. Nor is recovery sought on mere failure of defendant to pay plaintiff's funds to its national treasurer or to the Seminoles per capita. The gist of the petition is that defendant disbursed funds of plaintiff for "various purposes" (par. III), and in violation Page 299 U. S. 424 of its duty as trustee and of plaintiff's rights under "treaties and agreements" and, "without authority of Congress, has spent large sums of the trust funds of plaintiff" (par. VI). The petition extends to no amount not "thus spent" (par. VIII). It prays statement by defendant only as to "expenditures" of plaintiff's funds "during said period," and seeks judgment only for such sums as appear to the court to have been "expended."
Item 3, $154,551.28, is a part of $304,551.28 first described in the amended petition. Of that amount, $150,000 (item 2) was disallowed. The amount included in the judgment rests on special finding VI, which is to the effect that, commencing with the Act of July 26, 1866 (14 Stat. 263, 264), up to and including the Act of April 30, 1908 (35 Stat. 91), Congress annually appropriated $25,000, being the interest at 5 percent on the $500,000 fund provided in the Eighth article of the Treaty of Aug. 7, 1856 (11 Stat. 702) for the purpose of making per capita payments, and that the United States disbursed the sums thus appropriated for the years involved, either by direct payment per capita to members Page 299 U. S. 426 of the tribe or by cash payment to the treasurer of the Seminole Nation, except interest in years between 1867 and 1879, inclusive, the total of which is $92,051.28, and interest in the years 1907 to 1909, inclusive, amounting to $62,500, and that these items of interest were neither disbursed to members of the tribe nor paid to the treasurer.
Item 8 -- $864,702.58 -- is based on a claim which is described in the amended petition in substance as follows: Page 299 U. S. 427 After the passage of the Curtis Act, defendant impounded all the funds of plaintiff, and assumed full administrative control over the disbursement of same. Notwithstanding
3. Item 9 is $154,455.30. Unlike the items considered above, it may be held sufficiently alleged in the original petition. The amended petition, par. IX, gives details as follows: the Original Seminole Agreement ratified by Act of July 1, 1898, 30 Stat. 567, provides that $500,000 Page 299 U. S. 428 of the funds belonging to the Seminoles shall be set apart as a permanent school fund and be held by the United States at 5 percent interest. The school fund was established March 6, 1906. Defendant, in violation of the agreement and without authority of law "disbursed from the principal thereof the amount of $154,455.30." Therefore, that amount "is due the Seminole Nation from the defendant." As to it, the court found that the Secretary of the Interior did disburse from the principal of the permanent school fund in 1920 and 1921 "per capita payments" amounting to $32,445.56; in 1921 "equalization of allotments," $490.22; in each of the years 1922 to 1930, payments for "Education" amounting in all to $121,519.52. In its opinion, the court said:
Congress contemplated at least as early as 1898, at the time of the passage of the Curtis Act and the ratification of the Seminole Agreement, that the tribal government was soon to be terminated. The Act of March 3, 1903, § 8, 32 Stat. 1008, declared that it should not continue after March 4, 1906. Congress, by Joint Resolution March 2, 1906, 34 Stat. 822, continued tribal existence and tribal government until all tribal property and its proceeds should be distributed among individual members. The Act of April 26, 1906, § 28, 34 Stat. 148, continued tribal existence and government for all authorized Page 299 U. S. 429 purposes until otherwise provided by law. By acts passed in 1906 and 1908, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to take possession of all buildings used for governmental, school, or other tribal purposes, together with the furniture and land pertaining thereto, and to sell the same and deposit the proceeds to the credit of the Seminoles. [Footnote 6] Liquidation of Seminole property and distribution of its proceeds per capita went forward under direction of Congress. [Footnote 7] And, by May 25, 1918, when the Congress passed the act making appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, under which defendant claims that the per capita payments here in question were made, the need of a permanent school fund had almost ended. At the hearing upon that measure before the House Committee on Indian Affairs, [Footnote 8] the Bureau, through the Assistant Commissioner, reported that one of the two Seminole Academies had already ceased to exist, that the other was still used, but that public school privileges were within the reach of almost every pupil, and that the fund was not needed for the support of any other school. It was on the recommendation of the Bureau that Congress included in § 18 of this act a clause specifically authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to pay to the enrolled members of the Seminole Tribe entitled to share in its funds, or to their lawful heirs, out of the Seminole school fund not to exceed $100 per capita and directed payment to be made under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. [Footnote 9] Page 299 U. S. 430 The act, like earlier ones [Footnote 10] and those making appropriations for fiscal years ending, respectively, June 30, 1920, and 1921, [Footnote 11] contained a proviso directing that, in the specified fiscal year, no money shall be expended from tribal funds without specific appropriation by Congress except "[e]qualization of allotments, per capita and other payments authorized by law. . . ." By regulations promulgated June 17, 1918, par. 14, the Secretary required disbursements to continue "until all claims are paid or until further orders of the Department."
Plaintiff does not claim that § 18 of the appropriation act of 1918 did not specifically authorize the use of the principal to make the per capita payments here in question. But it contends authority so to use that fund ceased with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919. The payments authorized constituted a distribution looking to the ultimate disposition of all tribal property. The provision expressed no limitation in respect of the time Page 299 U. S. 431 within which they were to be made. The occasion and purpose of the enactment tend strongly to negative any implication that Seminoles entitled to participate in the distribution would be barred if the Secretary failed to cause payments to be made them within the fiscal year. The provisos contained in the appropriation acts for the fiscal years 1920 and 1921 during which the per capita payments in controversy were made reasonably may be deemed sufficient to authorize them. Weight is to be given to the Secretary's regulations, par. 13, which declared that all suspended or withheld payments were
As to the sum of $121,519.52 made up of payments from 1922 through 1930 for "Education," the sole question is whether Congress authorized the use of the principal of the permanent school fund for that purpose. The appropriation acts applicable to these years authorized the Secretary of the Interior to continue Seminole Page 299 U. S. 432 schools from the tribal funds. [Footnote 12] It must be assumed that, when enacting these measures, Congress took into account the fact that the Seminole school fund, in pursuance of its authority, had been so depleted that interest on the amount remaining in it would not meet even the lessened requirements. Its failure to limit expenditure for education to interest on the permanent fund and adherence to substantially the same form of words yearly throughout the entire period sufficiently indicate the intention of Congress that disbursements for that purpose were not limited to the interest, and that principal was to be used. The inclusion of that amount in the judgment cannot be sustained.