Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

UNITED STATES CODE

Page

Title 5, Section 372; Standard Fruit & Steamship___
Title 15, Sections 601-617; Cherry Cotton Mills..
Title 18; Section 326:

659

243

United Fruit Co-___.

303

Title 26, Section 811 (c); Central Hanover...

Standard Fruit & Steamship Co---

Title 26, Sections 1600-1611; National Wooden Box Asso - _

659

210

295

[blocks in formation]

Title 41, Sections 28–33; Harsch Bronze & Foundry-

395

[blocks in formation]

Public Laws of Vermont; Section 1008 (1933); Woodbury
Granite Co------

226

State of Washington; R. S. Section 3836; Berg Shipbuilding Co.

102

LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE COURT OF

CLAIMS

[PRIVATE LAW 23-79TH CONGRESS]
[CHAPTER 50-1ST SESSION]

[S. 167]

AN ACT

For the relief of Perkins Gins, formerly Perkins Oil Company, of Memphis, Tennessee.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the statutes of limitation, so far as they bar the cotton linter claim of Perkins Gins, a corporation of Memphis, Tennessee, formerly the claim of Perkins Oil Company, also a corporation of Memphis, Tennessee, arising out of purchase contract numbered 3418, entered into by the said Perkins Oil Company, of Memphis, Tennessee, predecessor of said Perkins Gins, of Memphis, Tennessee, on September 16, 1918, with the United States of America be, and the same are hereby, waived and revoked.

SEC. 2. That the said claimant is hereby authorized to file within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act its said claim and have the same adjudicated by the Court of Claims of the United States.

Approved March 31, 1945.

[PUBLIC LAW 74-79TH CONGRESS]

[CHAPTER 173-1ST SESSION]

[H. R. 1804]

AN ACT

To amend the Act of Congress entitled "An Act for the relief of the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska", approved June 5, 1942.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That an Act entitled "An Act for the relief of the Tlingit and

679646-46—vol. 103- -2

XVII

XVIII LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS

Haida Indians of Alaska", approved June 5, 1942 (56 Stat. 323), is amended to read as follows:

"That the time within which suit or suits may be filed by the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska under the terms of the Act of Congress of June 19, 1935 (ch. 275, 49 Stat. L. 388), is hereby extended for a period of six years from and after the date of the approval of this Act."

Approved June 4, 1945.

CASES DECIDED

IN

THE COURT OF CLAIMS

February 1, 1945, to May 7, 1945 (partial), and other cases not heretofore published

THE CHICKASAW NATION OF INDIANS v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. K–544. Decided January 8, 1945. Plaintiff's motion for new trial overruled April 2, 1945]*

On the Proofs

Indian claims; suit brought under special jurisdictional acts, as amended, for claims arising out of Indian treaties and agreements or Acts of Congress relating to Indian affairs.-Where the first claim in the instant suit arises under a presumed treaty or agreement of July 15, 1794, which cannot be located either in the original or in the form of a copy, but the existence of which is evidenced by references thereto in various appropriation acts acknowledging the obligation of the Government in accordance therewith to pay to the plaintiff an annuity of $3,000 in goods; it may not be said that Congress violated the unknown terms of the treaty or agreement by making no appropriations for such annuity prior to the appropriation for 1798 (1 Stat. 563, 564); and hence, the claim of $10,500 for the last half of the year 1794, and for the years 1795, 1796, and 1797 is without support and is not allowed. Same; treaty of July 15, 1794, recognized by Congress in absence of proof of its ratification.-The treaty or agreement of July 15, 1794, was recognized by the Congress only insofar as appropriations were made, and it is to be given limited effect accordingly; recognition by the Court is proper notwithstanding lack of proof as to ratification. See Moore v. United States, 32 C. Cls. 593.

* Reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court, November 5, 1945; 326 U. S. See order of January 7, 1946, 105 C. Cls.

1

Syllabus

103 C. Cls.

Same; goods in payment of annuity obligations; receipt presumed where proof of shipment is shown.-Where it is shown that for the years 1798, 1799, and 1800 goods of the annuity values were forwarded for the Chickasaw Nation, it must be presumed that they were received in due course; the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove its case.

Same; burden of proof not shifted to defendant.-While the jurisdictional act waives the "lapse of time," it does not thereby shift the burden of proof to the defendant nor excuse the absence of proof by the plaintiff.

Same. It must also be presumed that the goods forwarded were paid for out of the appropriations made in fulfillment of the supposed treaty or agreement.

Same; no proof that treaty obligation as to education was not fulfilled. The fourth claim for a shortage of $3,859.42 in disbursement for the education of children of the tribe, pursuant to the treaty of May 24, 1834, is not allowed since it is not shown that the treaty obligation was unfulfilled.

Same; Act of July 5, 1862; suspending annuity payments to disloyal tribes; diversion of annuity funds to relief of loyal members of tribes who were destitute.-The evident purpose of the Act of July 5, 1862 (12 Stat. 512, 515), was to suspend, at the discretion of the President, the payment of annual treaty obligations to tribes that were then hostile to the United States and to make this money available for relief for individual members of these tribes who had been driven from their homes and reduced to want because of their loyalty to the Government and who might be scattered and could not be segregated by tribes for the purpose of general and immediate relief and individual, tribal accounting.

Same; suspense of annuities distinguished from accumulation.—To suspend or postpone annuities is very different from accumulating them; and to resume annuities at the end of a period of suspension does not include the payment of back annuities, which are annual allowances.

Same; relief funds not available only for refugees of particular tribe.-The Act of July 5, 1862, and succeeding acts suspending annuities to hostile tribes, did not require that annuity appropriations which would ordinarily have been paid to a particular tribe should be available only for relief for refugees of that tribe.

Same; recovery of balance, even if due, not possible where such balance is not ascertainable.-In Seminole Nation v. United States, 93 C. Cls. 500, 516, while doubt was expressed whether expenditure of tribal funds under the Act of July 5, 1862, was authorized for refugees of tribes other than those belonging to the tribe whose funds they were, it was held in the Seminole case that a distribution was authorized by the 1862 Act,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »