1. Upon a reference to determine a claim for services on a
quantum meruit basis, when the Court of Claims finds the
amounts already paid the claimant, and dismisses his petition, or
renders judgment for an additional sum, this is a determination
that he was not entitled to more, although there is no definite
finding of the value of the services. P.
272 U. S.
730.
2. In determining the value of services rendered the Choctaw
Nation, the Court of Claims was not bound by opinions of the
Choctaw Legislature or executive officers. P.
272 U. S. 731.
59 Ct.Cls. 768,
id. 796, affirmed.
Appeals from decisions of the Court of Claims on claims for
services, against the Choctaw Nation, referred to that Court by
Acts of Congress.
See Garland's Heirs v. Choctaw Nation,
256 U. S. 439.
Page 272 U. S. 729
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
These causes, although heard separately and upon different
records, may be disposed of conveniently by one opinion.
Samuel Garland, Peter P. Pitchlynn, and two others were
appointed delegates of the Choctaw Nation under an Act of the
Legislative Assembly approved November 9, 1853, and charged with
the duty of pressing to settlement a claim against the United
States for ceded lands. They performed valuable services and each
of them received therefor considerable sums of money. Their heirs
sought large additional payments. Finally Congress referred the
matter to the Court of Claims. The Act of June 21, 1906, c. 3504,
34 Stat. 325, 345, provides:
"That the Court of Claims is hereby authorized and directed to
hear and adjudicate the claims against the Choctaw Nation of the
heirs of Peter P. Pitchlynn, deceased, and to render judgment
thereon in such amounts, if any, as may appear to be equitably due.
Said judgment, if any, in favor of the heirs of Pitchlynn shall be
paid out of any funds in the Treasury of the United States
belonging to the Choctaw Nation, said judgment to be rendered on
the principle of
quantum meruit for services rendered and
expenses incurred. Notice of said suit shall be served on the
governor of the Choctaw Nation, and the Attorney General of the
United States shall appear and defend in said suit on behalf of
said nation."
A like Act, approved May 29, 1908, 35 Stat. 444, 445, c. 216,
directed adjudication of the claim of Samuel Garland, deceased.
Garland's heirs brought suit in the Court of Claims September 3,
1908. It held against them upon the theory that the delegation
which represented the Choctaw Nation should be treated as a unit,
and, as such, had been fully
Page 272 U. S. 730
paid for the entire service. Upon appeal, this Court reversed
that judgment and sent the cause back after saying:
"The contention under the facts disclosed in the petition is
technical. The petition showed services rendered and, if the
petition be true, valuable services, and for them there should have
been recovery if the Nation was liable, and we think it was. How
much, we do not say nor did the Court of Claims consider, it being
of opinion that the Nation was not liable for anything. Upon the
return of the case, it may determine the amount due Garland, if
anything, dependent upon what his services contributed in securing
the congressional appropriation."
Garland's Heirs v. Choctaw Nation, 256 U.
S. 439,
256 U. S.
445.
Much evidence has been presented in both causes, and there are
elaborate findings. The court held the heirs of Garland -- No. 42
-- were not entitled to recover anything, and dismissed their
petition. It rendered judgment for $3,113.90 in favor of
Pitchlynn's heirs -- No. 43. The causes are here by appeals
allowed, respectively, January 19 and February 2, 1925.
In neither cause did the Court of Claims definitely find the
value of the services rendered by the delegate, but it ascertained
and stated the sums received by each of them. By dismissing the
petition of Garland's heirs, it adjudged, in effect, that he had
received full compensation, and the judgment in favor of
Pitchlynn's heirs for $3,113.92 determined that the amount
theretofore received plus such recovery would amount to full
compensation for his services.
We think the findings of fact sufficient to permit us to dispose
of the causes, and accordingly deny the motion to remand.
The enabling Acts very clearly provide for recoveries upon the
principle of
quantum meruit for services rendered and
expenses incurred. The Court of Claims was not
Page 272 U. S. 731
bound to accept opinions of the legislature or executive
officers of the Choctaw Nation; its duty was to determine for
itself what the services were worth. After consideration of the
evidence, it reached the above-stated conclusions, and we find no
adequate reason for overturning the result.
The judgments below are
Affirmed.