United States ex rel. Detling v. Work

D.C. Circuit

United States ex rel. Detling v. Work

18 F.2d 822, 57 App. D.C. 172, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2069

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1927

DocketNo. 4532

StatusPublished

This text of 18 F.2d 822 (United States ex rel. Detling v. Work) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States ex rel. Detling v. Work, 18 F.2d 822, 57 App. D.C. 172, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2069 (D.C. Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia denying appellant’s petition for mandamus to direct the Secretary of the Interior to pay appellant alleged accrued annuities under the Act of January 14, 1889, 25 Stat. 642. [823]*823The ease was disposed of under an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that the plaintiff, appellant here, is a citizen of the United States and resided in the state of Minnesota prior to the passage of the act of 1889, and has since continued to reside in that state. The stipulation further recites that “the plaintiff is able to prove by competent testimony that her forbears were of such degrees of Chippewa Indian blood that her personal status is approximately one-fourth degree Chippewa Indian.” Plaintiff never has been enrolled with any tribe of Indians, and the application of her father to participate in the benefits of the act of 1889 was rejected by the Secretary of the Interior.

The Secretary has found that plaintiff, is not a Chippewa Indian, within the meaning of the act of 1889. It is.apparent, from the somewhat meager statment of facts, that this was a question the Secretary was called upon to determine. The mere fact that plaintiff’s “personal status is approximately one-fourth degree Chippewa Indian” is not, of itself, conclusive, and the record fails to disclose any basis for the contention that the decision of the Secretary was either arbitrary or capricious.

For the reasons set forth in our opinion in the preceding appeal (No. 4531, U. S. ex rel. Coburn v. Work, — App. D. C.-, 18 F.[2d] 822, just decided), the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia denying appellant’s petition for mandamus to direct the Secretary of the Interior to pay appellant alleged accrued annuities under the Act of January 14, 1889, 25 Stat. 642. [823]*823The ease was disposed of under an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that the plaintiff, appellant here, is a citizen of the United States and resided in the state of Minnesota prior to the passage of the act of 1889, and has since continued to reside in that state. The stipulation further recites that “the plaintiff is able to prove by competent testimony that her forbears were of such degrees of Chippewa Indian blood that her personal status is approximately one-fourth degree Chippewa Indian.” Plaintiff never has been enrolled with any tribe of Indians, and the application of her father to participate in the benefits of the act of 1889 was rejected by the Secretary of the Interior.

The Secretary has found that plaintiff, is not a Chippewa Indian, within the meaning of the act of 1889. It is.apparent, from the somewhat meager statment of facts, that this was a question the Secretary was called upon to determine. The mere fact that plaintiff’s “personal status is approximately one-fourth degree Chippewa Indian” is not, of itself, conclusive, and the record fails to disclose any basis for the contention that the decision of the Secretary was either arbitrary or capricious.

For the reasons set forth in our opinion in the preceding appeal (No. 4531, U. S. ex rel. Coburn v. Work, — App. D. C.-, 18 F.[2d] 822, just decided), the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F.2d 822, 57 App. D.C. 172, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-detling-v-work-cadc-1927.