Crow v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters'1 statement of the ease: The grounds for the motion sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The act of 1834 was obligatory both upon the Indians and upon the Interior Department. As to the former it imposed a liability in invitnm and altogether independent of their promises. They are bound to pay, not because they have agreed to do so but because the law says that they shall.
Read the full summary
The Reporters'1 statement of the ease: The grounds for the motion sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The act of 1834 was obligatory both upon the Indians and upon the Interior Department. As to the former it imposed a liability in invitnm and altogether independent of their promises. They are bound to pay, not because they have agreed to do so but because the law says that they shall. The same act devolves upon the Secretary of the Interior, as the appropriate agent of the President, the duty of investigating cases of alleged depredation and of ascertaining the value of the…
1Opinion of the CourtWeldon, J.
On the 24th of August, 1894, the claimant by his attorney filed an election “not to reopen the allowance made in the above-entitled case by the Secretary of the Interior, but requests the entry of judgment in the said cause for the sum of $984.15, being the amount of the allowance made in favor of said claimant by the Secretary of the Interior on the 24th of November, 1886.”
On the 13th of October, 1894, the defendants filed a motion “to dismiss the claimant’s election not to reopen and request for judgment in the amount allowed by the Secretary of the Interior, filed on August 24,1894.”
In the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mares v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1894
- Hyne v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1892