Court Opinion

ID: 9458976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:06:52.14883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:58.062836
License: Public Domain

HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge, '
concurring in the result:
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion because I believe it is compelled by the language of our court in Harkins v. United States, 375 F.2d 239, 241.
I do not feel that Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 92 S.Ct. 1456, 31 L.Ed.2d 741, is controlling nor that it leads to this result. As the Supreme Court there emphasized, that case involved only a mineral interest that had never been made the subject of an allotment. Furthermore the Court significantly observed: “Neither is it appurtenant to an allotment.” Id. at 143, 92 S.Ct. at 1467. Here, however, the surcharge claim for the Government’s breach of trust is appurtenant to an allotment. And, in my opinion, this surcharge claim is ancillary to the action to obtain a judgment for the land that had been made the subject of an allotment. For these reasons I cannot agree that the Affiliated, Ute Citizens case applies here.
Nevertheless I conclude that our Har-kins opinion compels an affirmance. There are differences between this case and Harkins, and Harkins does not deal with the forceful argument that the set-off provision in the companion statute — 25 U.S.C.A. § 346 — shows that Congress contemplated at least that some claims for damages may be entertained in suits under § 345 involving the right to any allotment; otherwise the reference to set-offs had no purpose at all in the statute. However, in Harkins our court described an action brought under § 345 as one “ . . . to determine the right of such person of Indian blood to an allotment of land under any law or treaty.” 375 F.2d at 241. And the court concluded that “[f]or this limited purpose, the United States has consented to suit.” Ibid. In view of this strict interpretation placed on the jurisdictional statute I feel we are obliged to affirm.