Seminole Nation v. United States, 90 Ct. Cl. 151 (Ct. Cl. 1940). · Go Syfert
Search
Seminole Nation v. United States, 90 Ct. Cl. 151 (Ct. Cl. 1940). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Vann v. Kempthorne (dcd, 2006-12-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vann v. Kempthorne
D.D.C. · 2006 · confidence medium
Seminole Nation v. United States, 90 Ct.Cl. 151, 152 (Ct.Cl.1940) (recounting how federal government officials informed tribal leaders of one of the conditions of their semi-independent status within the United States: “Slavery to be abolished, and measures to be taken to incorporate the slaves into the tribes, with their rights guaranteed.”). 10 As one federal court later observed, “[a]n examination of the treaties made immediately after the close of the Civil War with the tribes who had entered into treaties with the Confederacy, unmistakably discloses that the predominant purpose and …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
THE SEMINOLE NATION
v.
United States
No. L-89.
United States Court of Claims.
Jan 8, 1940.
90 Ct. Cl. 151
Mr. Ernest L. Wilkinson for the plaintiff. Messrs. Pcrnl M. Niebell, Frank J. Boudinot, John, W. Cragwn and W. W. Pryor were on the briefs., Mr. Charles H. Small, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney Generad Norman M. Littell, for the defendant. Mr. Raymond T. Nagle was on the briefs.
Green, Littleton, Omuf, Whalet, Whitaker, Williams.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Whalet, OMuf Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case first came before the court on a demurrer to the petition and the demurrer was sustained on November 6, 1933. The plaintiff amended the petition and the case is now presented on its merits. The amendment to the petition presents no new and material issue, nor does it amplify the petition so that it states a new cause of action.

The sole issue is one of law. Plaintiff contends that under the treaty of 1866 in which the freedmen were admitted into this nation as native citizens, provision was made for political rights only and participation in the tribal property along with the Indians by blood was .not included, and that the inclusion of nine hundred odd freedmen in the division of tribal funds and lands on the same basis as the Indians by blood was illegal and wrongful. The question presented is identical with that which was raised by the demurrer and which was decided by Chief Justice Booth in a learned and elaborate opinion, Seminole Nation v. United States, 78 C. Cls. 455.

We can see no benefit to be gained by another opinion on this issue. Chief Justice Booth covered the issue in such a clear and convincing opinion that nothing can be added to it. We not only adhere to that decision but we adopt it as the decision in this case.

The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Whitaker, Judge; Williams, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Green, Judge, concur.