Kirby v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the -District Court of the United States for the District of Montana; George M. Bourquin, Judge. Action by the .United States, for and on behalf of the Crow Tribe of Indians, against George B. Kirby and others. Judgment for the United States, and defendants bring error. On December 17, 1915, in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Act of Congress of February 28, 1891 (26 Stat. 794 [U. S. Comp.
Read the full summary
In Error to the -District Court of the United States for the District of Montana; George M. Bourquin, Judge. Action by the .United States, for and on behalf of the Crow Tribe of Indians, against George B. Kirby and others. Judgment for the United States, and defendants bring error. On December 17, 1915, in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Act of Congress of February 28, 1891 (26 Stat. 794 [U. S. Comp. St. § 42181), as amended by the Act of August 15, 1894 ( 28 Stat. 305 [IT. S. Comp. St. § 4219]), and in pursuance of the resolution of the Crow Tribal Council of July 29,…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] The merits of the controversy depend upon the construction of the clause of the contract which is quoted above. The court below construed it to mean that for the rental of $31,950 per annum the defendants could graze any number of cattle up to the equivalent of 9.000 head throughout each year taken separately, and that for any excess of that number the defendants were to pay $4.50 per head grazed during the equivalent of a year. Said the court:
“The language of the lease, that this $4.50 per head is payable for ‘any excess over and above such maximum…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. v. RankinSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Eastern S. S. Corp. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1919
- United States v. SanbornU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1886
- Smith v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1910
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Gleckman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935
- Kemart Corporation, a Corporation v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Vincennes Steel Corporation v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1938
- Spiritwood Grain Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1950
- Kenyon v. Automatic Instrument Co.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1950
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.