Case Name: EASTERN CHEROKEES v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1912-06-07
Citations: 47 Ct. Cl. 653
Docket Number: 
Parties: EASTERN CHEROKEES v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
EASTERN CHEROKEES v. THE UNITED STATES.
[45 C. Cls. R., 104, 225; U. S. R., 572.]
On the claimants’ Appeal.
This is a branch of the case The Cherokee Nation v. The United States reported in 40 C. Cls. R., 252. The decree awarded to the Eastern Cherokees $1,111,284.70, “ less such counsel fees as may he chargeable against the same under the provisions of the contract with the Cherokee Nation of January 16, 1903, and such other counsel fees and expenses as.may he hereafter allowed by this court." The decree also directs that the remainder “ be distributed directly to the Eastern and Western Cherokees who toere parlies either to the treaty of New Echota or the treaty of Washington as individuals or to the legal representatives of such individuals." The Supreme Court affirms the decree, although the present claimants assigned as error “ The court erred in charging the sañd fund of $1,111,884.70 with the fees of the attorneys for the Cherokee Nation." Of this the Supreme Court said: “We are not disposed to interfere with the Court of Claims in the allowance of fees and costs.” The Eastern Cherokees now ask the court to so construe its decree that the Secretary of the Interior shall not be 'authorized to deduct from the fund awarded to them the costs and fees awarded to the counsel of the Cherokee Nation.
The court below decides:
I.The Cherokee Nation by the terms of its agreement with the United States of December 19, 3SOI, for tlie sale of the Cherokee Outlet was acting for all Cherokees who might be entitled to share in any fund. The accounting agreed upon was not limited to the claim for espouses incurred in the removal of Eastern Cherokees, but was to embrace “ a complete account of moneys due the Cherokee Nation" under any treaty or statute.
II.The contract between the Cherokee Nation and its attorneys was confined to the item for the removal of the Eastern Cherokees known as the Shide-Bender award.
III.The suit instituted by the Cherokee Nation under the Act 1st July, 1902 (32 Stat, D., p. 726), was for the benefit of all Cherokees. The individuals known as the Eastern Cherokees were allowed to come in and be represented by their own attorneys by the Act 3d March, 1903 (32 Id., p. 996). But it was not the purpose of the act to supersede the suit already brought by the Cherokee Natiou.
IY. The Cherokee Nation, having prosecuted the action and having obtained judgment'in its name, which on appeal was affirmed by the Supreme Court, should not be denied the right of having its attorneys compensated out of the fund in controversy, because the court directed that the fund be distributed directly to individual Cherokees per capita instead of being paid to the Cherokee Nation for distribution.
Y. A fund which is the stake in controversy in a suit should bear the expenses of the suit.
YI. Inasmuch as the moving parties applied iu another court for a mandamus which was refused and they did not appeal, and where they did not apply to this court for an amendment of the decree until after tlie United States had paid the money to the attorneys pursuant to the decree, they are guilty of laches.
YII. This court can not change a decree after it has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and after the contention here was presented there and decided. The principle is that whatever was before the appellate court and disposed of must be deemed finally settled.

Opinion:
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court June 7, 1912.