Journeycake v. Cherokee Nation

30 Ct. Cl. 172, 1895 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 80, 1895 WL 719
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMarch 16, 1895
DocketNo. 16837
StatusPublished

This text of 30 Ct. Cl. 172 (Journeycake v. Cherokee Nation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Journeycake v. Cherokee Nation, 30 Ct. Cl. 172, 1895 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 80, 1895 WL 719 (cc 1895).

Opinion

Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The decree in this case was rendered in April, 1893 (28 C. Cls. R., 281). Its general purpose was to determine and declare the rights of the complainants in the common property of the Cherokee Nation. Its immediate subject of jurisdiction was a fund of $6.00,000, made up of two sums of $300,000 each, which had been derived, one from the rental and the other from the sale of the public domain of the nation. Accordingly, the decree declared that the complainants were citizens of the Cherokee Nation equally with those who were Cherokees by blood, and equally entitled to participate in a fund derived from the common property. With regard to the specific fund before the court, it adjudged that “the whole, number of Cherokee citizens of all descriptions” was 26,771, and that the number of the Delawares was 759, and, consequently, that their proportionate part of the fund was $17,011. This decree was carried to the Supreme Court by appeal of the defendants and affirmed. The complainants rested content and did not appeal.

They now seek to enlarge and change the decree in four particulars by motion.

1. The first motion of the complainants which will be considered is to extend the decree to a fund that was not in existence when the case was formerly before the court, the fund of $8,300,000, derived from the sale of the Cherokee Outlet to the United States. The jurisdictional act is broad enough to embrace this fund. (Act 1st October, 1890, 26 Stat. L., p. 638.) “To hear and determine what are the just rights in law or in 'equity of the Shawnee and Delaware Indians, who are settled and incorporated into the Cherokee Nation, ” and “to recover from the Cherokee Nation all moneys due, either in law or equity, and unpaid to the said Shawnees, Delawares, or freed[174]*174men, which the Cherokee Nation have before paid out, or may-hereafter pay, per capita, in the Cherokee Nation, and which was, or may be, refused to or neglected to be paid to the said Shawnees, Delawares, or freedmen by the Cherokee Nation, out of any money or funds which have been, or may be, paid into the treasury of, or in any way have come, or may come, into the possession of the Cherokee Nation, derived from the sale, leasing, or rent for grazing purposes on Cherokee lands west of 96° west longitude, and which have been, or may be, appropriated and directed to be paid out per capita by the acts passed by the Cherokee council” are the effective words of the statute. A new suit can not now be brought under the statute, and it is proper for the court to give the requisite relief so long as the case remains open and within its jurisdiction.

But this extension of the decree must be strictly according to the decision both as regards the law and the facts. It being conceded that a new fund has come into existence which might have been included in the decision, if it had existed in time, the decision may be applied to it, but no new issues, either of law or fact, can be determined by the court upon a motion of this kind. If there is to be a new decision there must be a new petition, a new trial, a new decree, and with it, for the defendants, a new right of appeal.

2. The second thing which the complainants request the court to do is to change the basis of the recovery awarded by the decree from $22.41 to $29.65 per capita.

The decision in this case, as has been said, related to a fund of $600,000. The court held that the claimants were entitled to participate in that fund, and the decree awarded to them the proportionate part of the fund which they were legally and constitutionally entitled to receive. In consequence of the defendants having distributed the whole of that fund among Cherokees, to the exclusion of the Delawares, Shawnees, adopted whites, and freedmen of the nation, each individual native Cherokee received more than he was legally and constitutionally entitled to. The complainants now seek to amend the decree so that it shall award to each Delaware the same amount that was by distribution paid to each Cherokee.

Whether the facts will justify the court in changing the basis of the recovery is a new issue of fact. Whether the jurisdictional act will authorize the court to award to the com[175]*175plainants a larger proportion of the fund than they were legally entitled to is a new question of law. It is by no means clear that this request would have been allowed if it had been originally brought before the court, or if it were now presented on a retrial of the case. It is understood by the court that money enough has been withheld by the United States from moneys due to the Cherokee Nation to satisfy all of the recoveries which maybe had by the Delawares, Shawnees, and freedmen. After these three parties complainant have been fully paid, the surplus will go to the Cherokee Nation. If the court should now award to these complainants more than they are legally entitled to it may be that the Oherokees would receive less than they will be entitled to.

The case does not stop at the $600,000 fund. To that fund there has been added another of $6,640,000, making, for the subject of present consideration, a fund for distribution of $7,240,000. This new and entire fund ma.y be regarded as being owned by five parties. If the court awards to the Delawares all that they are legally entitled to, to the Shawnees all that they are legally entitled to, to the freedmen all that they are legally entitled to, it seems to follow that the remaining parties will receive no more than they are legally entitled to when they receive what is left. These questions, therefore, are questions which involve investigation and consideration, and it is manifest that they should have been presented to the court when the whole case was under investigation and consideration.

The court is of the opinion that this request can not now be considered. The complainants rested content with the decree.

They signified their acceptance, first, by making no application to change it; second, by taking no appeal. The case was taken to the Supreme Court by the other party, and it comes back to us with the decree set forth in extenso and the mandate that the same is hereby affirmed.” This court, therefore, can not now make a new decision affecting the legal rights of the parties which will materially increase the amount of the recovery.

3. The third request of the complainants is that the court will change the decree by changing the number of the parties from 759 to 871.

[176]*176In tbe determination of this case, 26,771 was taken as the whole number of Cherokee citizens of all descriptions and 759 as the number of the Delawares. From those elements a fund was “ ascertained, to wit, the sum of $17,011, to be paid by the treasurer of the Cherokee Nation or by the Secretary of the Interior of the United States to the individual Delawares, per capita, who would have been entitled to the same if the unconstitutional restrictions and discriminations in said statutes had not existed.”

The question, therefore, which was determined by the decree was not the absolute number of the Delawares, but the relative proportion which they bore to the whole number of Cherokee citizens. In that proportion the fund of $600,000 was to be distributed and the amount of their share in it ascertained. The enumeration upon which the court acted is as follows:

Cherokees by blood. 21,232
Adopted whites. 2,011

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 Ct. Cl. 172, 1895 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 80, 1895 WL 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/journeycake-v-cherokee-nation-cc-1895.