Rollins v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

87 N.C. 229
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 5, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 87 N.C. 229 (Rollins v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rollins v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, 87 N.C. 229 (N.C. 1882).

Opinion

Smith, C. J.

This action is prosecuted against the remnant of the Cherokee Indians remaining in the south-western counties of the state, after the removal of the great body of the nation under treaty arrangements with the government of the United States, to the reservation provided for them beyond the Mississippi river, for the recovery of compensation for.services under contracts entered into on the same day between the plaintiff and John Ross, their Chief, and between him and a large number of their head-men and chiefs, both undertaking to act on behalf and by the authority of the entire body, as a separate and organic community.

The contracts bear date May 15th, 1874, the one entered into by their principal chief, being pursuant to certain resolutions adopted at a general council of the Indians,held on October 9th, 1872; and the other, essentially of the same import in its general provisions, executed by other chiefs and head-men ; and both professing to be obligatory upon the entire tribe.

The contracts were on the same day presented to the judge of the district court of the United States, then holding a term of the circuit court at Asheville, and the execution of each acknowledged by the partios, and so certified by him under the seal of the court with certain other facts stated, as required by the act of congress, hereafter more particularly referred to.

The contracts were with these certificates submitted to, *241 and bear endorsed, the approval of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and of the Secretary of the Interior Department at Washington.

Among the claims asserted in the contract, five of which were against the government or its official agencies, to be prosecuted and pressed by the plaintiff, and to whichhe promises to give diligent attention, the last is thus described: “Sixth. To prosecute and attend to personally, and by such attorney or attorneys as he may employ, and whom he is hereby authorized to employ, all suits now pending in the courts of the United States in behalf of the Eastern Band of Cherokees against any person or persons whatsoever, and such, other suits as it may be necessary hereafter to institute in. any court of the United States or of the state of North’ Carolina, or of any other state or territory, to éstablish any right, or redress any wrong or injury done to the undersigned, chiefs or head-men, their tribe or any of their tribe.”

The plaintiff stipulates to prosecute the several claims mentioned in the contract, and due from the different sources specified, and the suits on their behalf before these instituted and undetermined, and to receive as his remuneration therefor, the amount of twenty per centum, fixed in the contract with Ross, on whatever funds and the value of whatever property may be by him secured for them from the government or its agents, and from the said, or other suits, as their direct results, or upon any 'award made by referees or arbitrators, or upon a compromise, but declared in the other contract to be a sum “ not to exceed twenty per centum to be allowed by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, out of such amounts as he may collect for, or establish to be due to the Eastern Band of Cherokees on account of any one or all of the claims hereinbefore mentioned, and at the same rate out óf the amounts of money or property as may be recovered in the said above suits at law or in equity, now pending or which may be hereafter instituted.

*242 The resolutions adopted in the Indian council in 1872, before the suits were brought for the services in which the-present demand is made, conferring authority upon John Ross to employ counsel on behalf of the tribe, enumerate their several claims upon the government only, and make no mention of suits to be brought in the courts, while the contract-actually made by him with the plaintiff, embraces-attention to the suits which had -in the meantime been brought, and were then pending. Both contracts were to-be in force for four years, and the eompensation^sought in the present action is limited to the services rendered in the .suits only.

The somewhat anomalous condition in which the Indians were placed by reason of the participation of large numbers of them in the military service of the Confederate government during the civil war, and the refusal of the government to pay over the funds due them in consequence, was put an end to by the passage of the act of congress, approved July 27th, 1868, in which the Secretary of the Interior is directed to “cause a new roll or census to be made of the North Carolina or Eastern Ckerokees, which shall be the roll upon which payments due said Indians shall be made,” and to “ cause the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to take the same supervisory charge of the Eastern or North Carolina Cherokees as of other tribes of Indians.” Acts 40 Cong., 2 Sess., ch. 259.

Under this act an enrolment was made and the Interior Department assumed and -has exercised such supervisory control over the interests of these Indians, establishing schools, appointing agents and disbursing money to them, and they have organized and put in operation a form of local civil government and public administration, but of course in subordination to the state government.

To enable the Indians to pursue and obtain their funds and the lands which had been purchased with them by pre~ *243 ceding agents, in tbe act appropriating money for the Indian service for the year ending June 30th, 1871, congress inserted the following clause: “That the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians by'that name and style be and they are hereby authorized and empowered to institute and carry ón a suit or suits in law or equity, in the district or circuit courts of the United States,-against the present or former Indian agent or agents of said Band, their administrators, executors and heirs, and against the securities of such agent or agents, their administrators, executors, curators or trustees, for all claims, causes of suit or rights, in law or equity, that said Band may have against them or either of them ; and the law of limitations shall apply to such claims, causes of action and rights, from and after the day this act takes effect. It shall be the duty of the District Attorney and the Attorney General of the United States to institute and prosecute all suits, causes for which may. arise under this section.” Acts 40 Cong., 2 Sess., ch. 296, § 11.

Pursuant to this enactment, which, if it does not confer, recognizes a corporate capacity in the Indians as a collective body or tribe to pursue-and recover their property by action in the federal courts,'sanctions its institution and provides counsel to prosecute it, suits were instituted on their behalf, one in equity against. W. H. Thomas, William Johnston and James W. Terrell, and the other, at law, against them and two other co-defendants, in the circuit court of the western district of North Carolina, which were depending when the contracts were made with the plaintiff, Rollins, and to his services in conducting them, and the compensation provided therefor, the before recited provisions apply.

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

Related

Sasser v. Beck
253 S.E.2d 577 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Atkinson v. Haldane
569 P.2d 151 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1977)
Haile v. Saunooke
246 F.2d 293 (Fourth Circuit, 1957)
Haile v. Saunooke
148 F. Supp. 604 (W.D. North Carolina, 1957)
United States v. 7,405.3 Acres of Land
97 F.2d 417 (Fourth Circuit, 1938)
United States v. Colvard
89 F.2d 312 (Fourth Circuit, 1937)
United States v. Wright
53 F.2d 300 (Fourth Circuit, 1931)
Frazier v. . Cherokee Indians
59 S.E. 1005 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Frazier v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
59 S.E. 1005 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
United States v. Boyd
83 F. 547 (Fourth Circuit, 1897)
United States v. Boyd
68 F. 577 (W.D. North Carolina, 1895)
Aycock v. Raleigh & Augusta Air-Line Railroad
89 N.C. 321 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)
Mabry v. . Erwin
78 N.C. 45 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 N.C. 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rollins-v-eastern-band-of-cherokee-indians-nc-1882.