Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

We must assume that the name Hall in connection with safes has acquired this kind of significance. This, or very nearly this, is alleged by the answer and must have been the finding of the courts below. It was suggested that really the value of the name was due to the use of patents that have run out. But we think it appears that the meaning of the name is not confined to the use of Hall's patents, and further, has had a particular succession of makers so associated with it that the principle of the injunction granted is right. The defendants say that they have corrected advertisements, and so forth, that might be deemed fraudulent, when called to their attention. But the name of the defendant company of itself would deceive unless explained. It may have repented but it has transgressed, and it even now asserts rights greater than we think it has. Therefore the injunction must stand.

We are not disposed to make a decree against the Halls personally. That against the company should be more specific. It should forbid the use of the name Hall, either alone or in combination, in corporate name, on safes, or in advertisements, unless accompanied by information that the defendant is not the original Hall's Safe and Lock Company or its successor, or, as the case may be, that the article is not the product of the last named company or its successors. With such explanations the defendants may use the Hall's name, and if it likes may show that they are sons of the first Hall and brought up in their business by him, and otherwise may state the facts.

There is a cross bill seeking to prevent the plaintiff from making use of the names Hall's Safe and Lock Company, Hall's Safe, &c., but it does not need separate consideration. The defendant shows nothing of which it can complain or which should bar the plaintiff from its relief. The portion of the decree dismissing the cross bill is affirmed.

Decree modified and affirmed.

[blocks in formation]

UNITED STATES v. SISSETON AND WAHPETON BANDS OF SIOUX INDIANS.

SISSETON AND WAHPETON BANDS OF SIOUX INDIANS v. UNITED STATES.

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

Nos. 338, 339. Argued January 7, 8, 1908.-Decided February 24, 1908.

While there are no general rules of law determining what payments are chargeable against Indian annuities, when annuities which have been confiscated on account of an outbreak of the annuitant Indians are restored, sums paid by the Government for the support of the annuitants on account of their destitution must be taken into account, and in this case the restored annuities are also chargeable with the amount of depredations during the outbreak for which the Indians were liable under a treaty, made subsequently to that granting the annuity and before the outbreak.

This court affirms the judgment of the Court of Claims adjusting the claim of the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians for their confiscated annuities restored under acts of Congress.and in regard to which jurisdiction was conferred by the act of June 21, 1906, c. 3504, 34 Stat. 372. 42 C. Cls. Rep. 416, affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. George M. Anderson, with whom Mr. Assistant Attorney General Thompson was on the brief, for the United States.

Mr. William H. Robeson and Mr. Marion Butler, with whom Mr. Charles A. Maxwell, Mr. George S. Chase and Mr. Josiah M. Vale were on the brief, for the Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a claim for annuities granted by the treaty of July 23, 1851, 10 Stat. 949, but declared forfeited by the act of February 16, 1863, c. 37, 12 Stat. 652, in consequence of a great outbreak and massacre by the Indians. The claim is made VOL. CCVIII-36

[blocks in formation]

under the Indian appropriation act of June 21, 1906, c. 3504, 34 Stat. 325, p. 372, the material part of which is as follows:

"That jurisdiction be, and hereby is, conferred upon the Court of Claims in Congressional case numbered twenty-two thousand five hundred and twenty-four, on file in said court, entitled 'The Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of Sioux Indians against the United States,' to further receive testimony, hear, determine, and render final judgment in said cause, for balance, if any is found due said bands, with right of appeal as in other cases, for any annuities which would be due to said bands of Indians under the treaty of July twenty-third, eighteen hundred and fifty-one (Tenth Statutes at Large, page nine hundred and forty-nine), as if the Act of forfeiture of the annuities of said bands, approved February sixteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, had not been passed; and to ascertain and set off against the amount found to be due to said Indians, if any, all payments or other provisions of every name or nature made to or for said bands by the United States, or to or for any members thereof, since said Act of forfeiture was passed, which are properly chargeable against unpaid annuities.

"Upon the rendition of such judgment and in conformity therewith, the Secretary of the Interior is hereby directed to determine which of said Indians now living took part in said outbreak and to prepare a roll of the persons entitled to share in said judgment by placing on said roll the names of all living members of the said bands residing in the United States at the time of the passage of this Act, excluding therefrom the names of those found to have participated in the outbreak; and he is directed to distribute the proceeds of such judgment, except as hereinafter provided, per capita to the persons borne on the said roll; and the court shall consider the evidence now on file in said cause in connection with such other evidence as may hereafter be adduced therein."

The act of June 21, 1906, was passed in pursuance and extension of an earlier act of March 3, 1901, c. 832, 31 Stat. 1058, p. 1078, which gave the Court of Claims full jurisdiction to

[blocks in formation]

report to Congress what members of these bands of Indians were not concerned in the depredations of the outbreak, and to report what annuities would now be due to the loyal members if the act of forfeiture had not been passed. The court was "further authorized to further consider, ascertain, and report to Congress what lands, appropriations, payments, gratuities, or other provisions have been made to or for said bands or to any of the members thereof since said Act of forfeiture was passed." "And if said court shall find that said bands preserved their loyalty to the United States, they shall ascertain and state the amount that would be due to said Indians on account of said annuities had said Act of Congress of February sixteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, not been passed, stating in connection therewith what credits shall be charged against said annuities on account of the lands, appropriations, payments, gratuities or other provisions as hereinbefore stated.” A petition was filed, but the court found that it was impossible to determine what members of these bands remained loyal to the United States; but that a large majority, if not all, aided and abetted the massacres and depredations. 39 C. Cls. Rep. 172. Thereupon the later act was passed, referring to the above petition, and the present supplemental petition was filed.

The Court of Claims stated the account and ordered a judgment for the balance, from which both parties appeal. The account is as follows:

CREDITS.

By fifty installments of $73,600, treaty July 23, 1851.... By amount allowed to chiefs for removal and subsistence by said treaty....

By amount allowed to chiefs for manual labor schools, etc...

$3,680,000 00

275,000 00 30,000 00

$3,985,000 00

Item.

DEBITS.

1. To twelve installments of annuity appropriated under the treaty of 1851 (10 Stat. L., 949) prior to outbreak, less $104.66 returned to the Treasury ($883,200-104.66),

[blocks in formation]

$883,095.34, less $122,509.12 appropriated

but not paid at date of forfeiture........ $760,586 22 (See p. 17, Senate Doc. 68, for various

statutes.)

2. To amount paid to the chiefs for removal and subsistence, and for manual labor schools under the treaty of 1851.....

305,000 00

3. To amount appropriated and unpaid at date
of forfeiture act, but forfeited and after-
wards expended for damages growing out of
the outbreak of 1862–3 (12 Stat. L., 652)... 122,509 12
4. To one-half of $100,000 advance annuity ap-
propriated February 16, 1863 (12 Stat. L.,
652)....

5. To one-half amount paid to scouts and sol-
diers of the four bands (26 Stat. L., 1038; 27
Stat. L., 624; 28 Stat. L., 889)...

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

50,000 00

103,176 65

6. To one-half amount expended for damages
and for support, but not for removal...... 807,824 71
(See p. 20, Senate Doc. 68, for various

[blocks in formation]

The amount of the unpaid annuities is not in dispute, but the questions raised by the appeals concern the items of set-off and involve the principle upon which they are to be charged. The Indians contend that only sums specially charged by Congress against annuities come into the account, while the United States goes to the opposite extreme. We agree with the Court of Claims that the contention of the Indians, at least, must be rejected, for the reason stated by it, that if it was correct Congress did not need the help of the court; the figures were patent. Furthermore the language of the act implies that the court is called upon for an active exercise of judicial reason

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »