LITTLE HORN STATE BANK v STOPS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13338 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN 1976 LITTLE HORN STATE BANK, P l a i n t i f f and 9 ROBERT STOPS AND NORMA STOPS, Defendants and Respondents. District Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : Clarence T. Belue argued, Hardin, Montana For Respondent : Cate, Lynaugh, F i t z g e r a l d and Huss, B i l l i n g s , Montana Thomas J. Lynaugh argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided: F i l e d : '. ' 7 ' icj/\; September 9 , 1976 ~ I C T 7 216 - 9' Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from an o r d e r e n t e r i n g a permanent i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t l e v y i n g o r e x e c u t i n g upon t h e p r o p e r t y of r e s p o n d e n t s w i t h i n t h e Crow I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n . The i n j u n c t i o n w a s o r d e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Big Horn County. T h i s a p p e a l a d d s a n o t h e r c h a p t e r t o t h e never ending s t o r y of I n d i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n . The r e l e v a n t f a c t s a r e a s f o l l o w s : Respondents, members of t h e Crow I n d i a n T r i b e r e s i d i n g on t h e Crow I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n , o b t a i n e d a l o a n from a p p e l l a n t bank l o c a t e d i n H a r d i n , Montana, and f a i l e d t o r e p a y t h e l o a n . T h i s commercial t r a n s a c t i o n t o o k p l a c e a t t h e bank which i s l o c a t e d o u t s i d e t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s of t h e Crow I n d i a n R e s e r vation. P r o c e s s w a s s e r v e d upon r e s p o n d e n t s on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . T h e r e a f t e r a p p e l l a n t o b t a i n e d a judgment i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t i n t h e amount o f $3,541.24. Following t h i s judgment on F e b r u a r y 1 8 , 1976, e x e c u t i o n w a s i s s u e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on F e b r u a r y 23, 1976. The w r i t of e x e c u t i o n was d i r e c t e d t o t h e s h e r i f f of Big Horn County, who proceeded t o g a r n i s h t h e wages of r e s p o n d e n t s e a r n e d on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n b u t w i t h i n Big Horn County. Respondents s o u g h t and o b t a i n e d i n j u n c - t i v e r e l i e f a g a i n s t t h e w r i t of execution. Appellant seeks t o d i s s o l v e t h e permanent i n j u n c t i o n and be a l l o w e d t o l e v y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' p r o p e r t y and wages w i t h i n t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . Respondents d i d n o t a t t a c k t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s s u b j e c t matter jurisdiction o r personal jurisdiction a t the d i s t r i c t c o u r t l e v e l o r before t h i s Court. Both of t h e s e i s s u e s have been l a i d t o r e s t by Mescalero Apache T r i b e v . J o n e s , 4 1 1 U.S. S.Ct. 1 4 5 , 93 1267, 36 L Ed 2d 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 , and Bad Horse v . Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 517 P.2d 893, c e r t . den. 419 U.S. 847, 95 S.Ct. A r e v i e w of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n 83, had no I n d i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s p u t e been i n v o l v e d , i s u s e f u l t o t h i s decision. I t h a s been a l o n g s t a n d i n g d o c t r i n e t h a t a n y c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e n d e r a judgment a l s o h a s t h e power t o e n f o r c e t h a t judgment t h r o u g h a n y o r d e r o r w r i t n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y i t s judgment i n t o e f f e c t . County, 6 W a l l . S t a t e s , 187 U.S. U.S. ex r e l . Riggs v. Johnson 1 6 6 , 18 L.Ed 768 ( 1 8 6 8 ) ; Pam-to-Pee 371, 23 S . C t . v . United 1 4 2 , 47 L . E ~221 ( 1 9 0 2 ) ; Hamilton v . N a k a i , 453 F.2d 1 5 2 , c e r t . d e n . 406 U.S. 945, 92 S.Ct. 2044, The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e f i n e d " j u r i s d i c t i o n " a t p. 773 i n Riggs: " * * * J u r i s d i c t i o n i s d e f i n e d t o b e t h e power t o h e a r and d e t e r m i n e t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r i n c o n t r o v e r s y i n t h e s u i t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , and t h e r u l e i s u n i v e r s a l , t h a t i f t h e power i s c o n f e r r e d t o r e n d e r t h e judqment o r e n t e r t h e d e c r e e , it a l s o i n c l u d e s t h e power t o i s s u e p r o p e r p r o c e s s t o e n f o r c e s u c h judqment o r decree. * * * "Express d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h i s c o u r t i s t h a t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a c o u r t i s n o t e x h a u s t e d by t h e r e n d i t i o n o f t h e judgment, b u t c o n t i n u e s u n t i l a t h a t judgment s h a l l b e s a t i : i f i e d . * * * " ( ~ m p h a s i s d d e d . ) The Montana l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d s e c t i o n 93-1106, R.C.M. 1947, which c o n t a i n s l a n g u a g e a n a l a g o u s t o t h i s p r i n c i p l e . We have i n t e r p r e t e d s e c t i o n 93-1106 t o c o n f e r upon a c o u r t , h a v i n g proper j u r i s d i c t i o n , a l l t h e means n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y t h e same i n t o e f f e c t , and i f t h e c o u r t h a s t h e power t o make a n o r d e r , it has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o enforce t h a t order. v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 54 Mont. 1 7 2 , 168 P . S t a t e ex rel. Eisenhauer 522. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n i t i a l l y s o u g h t t o e n f o r c e i t s judgment by a w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 93-5801 e t s e q . , R.C.M. 1947. A w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n a g a i n s t p r o p e r t y o f a judgment d e b t o r may b e i s s u e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o t h e s h e r i f f o f a n y county i n t h e s t a t e . S e c t i o n 93-5809, R.C.M. 1947. Thus, a d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s s t a t e w i d e e n f o r c e m e n t power under t h a t s e c t i o n . However, t h e w r i t must i s s u e t o t h e p r o p e r s h e r i f f , s i n c e a s h e r i f f h a s no a u t h o r i t y t o s e r v e t h e w r i t o u t s i d e o f h i s county. Mont. Merchants C r e d i t S e r v i c e v . ChJteau Co. Bank, 112 2 2 9 , 1 1 4 P.2d 1074. Absent t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e Crow I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n , t h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h i s w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n would b e a v a l i d means o f e n f o r c i n g t h e judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o t h e w r i t was l o c a t e d w i t h i n Big Horn County, t h e w r i t w a s d i r e c t e d t o t h e s h e r i f f o f Big Horn County, and a l l o t h e r e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f a v a l i d w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n existed. Respondents u r g e u s t o h o l d t h a t a c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e n d e r a judgment d o e s n o t have t h e power t o e n f o r c e t h a t judgment b e c a u s e t h e p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o s u c h w r i t i s l o c a t e d on t h e Crow I n d i a n ~ e s e r v a t i o n . I n e f f e c t , t h e y a s k t h a t t h e r e s e r v a t i o n be t r e a t e d on a n even p a r w i t h o u r s i s t e r s t a t e s . Such a s i t u a t i o n would n o t b e f e a s i b l e , s i n c e t h e Crow T r i b e d o e s n o t p r o v i d e f o r t h e h o n o r i n g o f s t a t e c o u r t judgments, n o r i s t h e f u l l - f a i t h and c r e d i t c l a u s e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e t r i b e . Had t h e judgment d e b t o r ' s p r o p e r t y been l o c a t e d i n a s i s t e r s t a t e , a p p e l l a n t bank c o u l d have o b t a i n e d a judgment i n t h a t s t a t e by p l e a d i n g t h e Montana judgment and showing t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r e q u i r e ments. Such a c o n c l u s i o n i s n o t a v a i l a b l e i n o u r s i t u a t i o n . The t a s k t o b e performed by t h i s C o u r t i s t o d e t e r m i n e whether o r n o t t h e S t a t e a c t i o n taken i n t h i s c a s e i s a c c e p t a b l e under t h e d o c t r i n e s concerning s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r I n d i a n reservations. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s a p p l i e d d i f f e r e n t r a t i o n a l e from t i m e t o t i m e , and t h e r e c e n t c o u r t d e c i s i o n s must b e r e a d a s a whole t o a r r i v e a t t h e p r o p e r t e s t t o b e a p p l i e d i n t h i s case. The i n i t i a l t e s t was propounded i n W i l l i a m s v . L e e , 358 U.S. 217, 79 S . C t . 269, 3 L Ed 2d 251, 254, which s t a t e d : " * * * E s s e n t i a l l y , a b s e n t g o v e r n i n g A c t s of Congress, t h e q u e s t i o n h a s always been whether t h e s t a t e a c t i o n i n f r i n g e d on t h e r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and be r u l e d by them." T h i s t e s t was a p p a r e n t l y o v e r r u l e d by Kennerly v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t of Montana, '&@U.S. 423, 9 1 S.Ct. 480, 27 L Ed 2d 507. i n McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Commission, 4 1 1 U.S. However, 1 6 4 , 93 S.Ct. 1257, 36 L Ed 2d 1 2 9 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 1 , t h e C o u r t r e v i v e d t h e W i l l i a m s t e s t stating: " * * * I t must be remembered t h a t c a s e s a p p l y i n g t h e Williams t e s t have d e a l t p r i n c i p a l l y w i t h s i t u a t i o n s involving non-Indians. [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] I n t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , b o t h t h e t r i b e and t h e S t a t e could f a i r l y claim an i n t e r e s t i n asserting t h e i r respective jurisdictions. The Williams t e s t w a s d e s i g n e d t o r e s o l v e t h i s c o n f l i c t by p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e c o u l d p r o t e c t i t s i n t e r e s t up t o t h e p o i n t where t r i b a l s e l f - g o v e r n ment would be a f f e c t e d . " * * * This Court has t h e r e f o r e held t h a t ' t h e q u e s t i o n h a s always been whether t h e s t a t e a c t i o n i n f r i n g e d on t h e r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and be r u l e d by t h e m . ' " The C o u r t s t i l l a d h e r e s t o t h e W i l l i a m s t e s t a s evidenced by t h e r e c e n t d e c i s i o n of F i s h e r v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t of Montana, 4 4 U.S.L.W. 3940 (U.S. March 1, 1 9 7 6 ) , when t h e c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e W i l l i a m s t e s t , even though a l l p a r t i e s w e r e members of t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b e , and t h e l i t i g a t i o n a r o s e on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . The W i l l i a m s t e s t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o r e v i e w t h i s a p p e a l . The l i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v e s a member of t h e Crow T r i b e r e s i d i n g on t h e Crow I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n and a nonmember, l o c a t e d o f f t h e reservation. I t i s important t o note t h a t t h e transaction i n dispute arose off the reservation. T h e r e f o r e , we must d e t e r m i n e whether s t a t e a c t i o n , i n t h e form of a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n t o enf o r c e a judgment r e n d e r e d on a t r a n s a c t i o n a r i s i n g o u t s i d e t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , i n t e r f e r e s w i t h t h e t r i b e ' s r i g h t t o make i t s own r u l e s and be governed by them. W h o l d t h a t it d o e s n o t . e that The c a s e s h o l d i n g / s u c h i n t e r f e r e n c e h a s o c c u r r e d p r e s e n t a combination of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n o c c u r r i n g on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n and t h e t r i b a l c o u r t p r o v i d i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r such m a t t e r s . I n W i l l i a m s t h e t r i b a l c o u r t exercised j u r i s d i c t i o n over d i s p u t e s o v e r commercial t r a n s a c t i o n s a r i s i n g on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n between members and nonmembers. I n S e c u r i t y S t a t e Bank v . P i e r r e , 162 Mont. 298, 511 P.2d 325, t h e t r i b a l c o u r t p r o v i d e d f o r c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n between members and nonmembers. I n F i s h e r , t h e most r e c e n t United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c a s e s o h o l d i n g , t h e f a c t s r e l a t i n g t o t h e c h i l d c u s t o d y d i s p u t e a l l a r o s e on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , and t h e Crow T r i b e p r o v i d e d f o r c u s t o d y l i t i g a t i o n among members ( a l l p a r t i e s were members o f t h e Crow T r i b e ) . W note t h a t i n the e s i t u a t i o n a t hand t h e Crow T r i b a l C o u r t o n l y e x e r c i s e s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n between members and nonmembers i f b o t h parties so stipulate. However, what i s i n i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s t h e e n f o r c e m e n t of a v a l i d judgment, n o t t h e p r o p e r c o u r t t o i n i t i a t e t h e l i t i g a t i o n . The t r a n s a c t i o n d i d n o t o c c u r on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n a s i n t h e above c a s e s but o u t s i d e t h e r e s e r v a t i o n boundaries. The s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n was w i t h i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t , n o t t h e t r i b a l c o u r t . The Crow T r i b e p r o v i d e s no means of e n f o r c i n g s t a t e c o u r t judgments, no method of a t t a c h i n g p r o p e r t y of a s t a t e judgment d e b t o r , and i s n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t c l a u s e a s s i s t e r s t a t e s are. U n t i l t h e Crow T r i b e h a s p r o v i d e d a means of s u c h e n f o r c e - ment o r a c t e d i n some manner w i t h i n t h i s a r e a , we f a i l t o see how t r i b a l self-government i s i n t e r f e r e d w i t h by a s s u r i n g t h a t r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s pay f o r t h e i r d e b t s i n c u r r e d o f f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . The c r u c i a l f a c t of t h i s a p p e a l i s t h a t t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r jurisdiction lies with t h e s t a t e court, not t h e t r i b a l court. In t h i s c a s e t h e t r i b a l members e l e c t e d t o l e a v e t h e r e s e r v a t i o n and c o n d u c t t h e i r a f f a i r s w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e s t a t e courts. When t h e y d o s o t h e y a r e s u b m i t t i n g t h e m s e l v e s t o t h e laws of t h i s s t a t e . They c a n n o t v i o l a t e t h o s e laws and t h e n r e t r e a t t o t h e sanctuary of t h e r e s e r v a t i o n f o r protection. The c a s e s a n a l a g o u s t o t h e s i t u a t i o n p r e s e n t e d h e r e a r e : S e c u r i t i e s , I n c . v . Anderson, 84 N.M. Natewa v . Natewa, 84 N.M. 629, 506 P.2d 786, 789; 69, 499 P.2d 691, 693; and S t a t e e x r e l . Old E l k v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 637 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . State Mont . , 552 P.2d 1394, 3 3 St.Rep. I n a l l of t h e s e c a s e s t h e s t a t e c o u r t p r o p e r l y had j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e d i s p u t e a t hand and p r o c e s s was a l l o w e d on t h e reservation t o bring t h e Indian defendant before t h e state court. I n Natewa, t h e w i f e , a Zuni I n d i a n l i v i n g i n Wisconsin, b r o u g h t a URESA a c t i o n a g a i n s t h e r ex-husband, a Zuni I n d i a n re- s i d i n g on t h e Zuni I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n i n N e w Mexico. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld t h e N e w Mexico D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e ex-husband t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t , s a y i n g : " * * * Appellant cannot i n t e r p o s e h i s s p e c i a l s t a t u s a s a n I n d i a n a s a s h i e l d t o prot e c t him from o b l i g a t i o n s t h a t r e s u l t from h i s m a r r i a g e t o a p p e l l e e which had been e n t e r e d i n t o off the reservation. * * *" I n S t a t e S e c u r i t i e s , a c o r p o r a t i o n brought s u i t t o recover on n o t e s c o n t r a c t e d o f f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n by Navajo I n d i a n s . The New Mexico Supreme C o u r t a l l o w e d s e r v i c e upon t h e I n d i a n s w h i l e t h e y were on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , s t a t i n g a t p . 789: " S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n does not eliminate Indian j u r i s d i c t i o n , it e x i s t s c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h it. There i s no i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h I n d i a n s e l f government. * * * . " * * * Exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n i n Indian c o u r t s , which do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l y s t a t e law, may r e s u l t i n s h i e l d i n g I n d i a n s from o b l i g a t i o n s incurred off t h e reservation." W e have t a k e n a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n i n Old E l k , h o l d i n g t h a t a s h e r i f f o f t h i s s t a t e may s e r v e a w a r r a n t f o r t h e a r r e s t of a n I n d i a n on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , when t h e c r i m e h a s o c c u r r e d off the reservation. The r e s p o n d e n t s e l e c t e d t o be governed by t h e l a w s of t h i s s t a t e when t h e y l e f t t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e r e s e r v a t i o n t o o b t a i n t h e l o a n from t h e a p p e l l a n t . T h i s was n o t a c a s e o f a nonmember c h o o s i n g t o t r a n s a c t h i s b u s i n e s s w i t h i n t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n a s i n W i l l i a m s , Kennerly, and P i e r r e . The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n Mescalero Apache T r i b e v . J o n e s , 4 1 1 U.S. 1 4 5 , 93 S.Ct. 1267, 36 L Ed 2d 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 : " * * * Absent e x p r e s s f e d e r a l law t o t h e cont r a r y , I n d i a n s g o i n g beyond r e s e r v a t i o n b o u n d a r i e s have g e n e r a l l y been h e l d s u b j e c t t o n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y state l a w otherwise applicable t o a l l c i t i zens of t h e s t a t e . " [Citations omitted.] Here t h e r e s p o n d e n t s d i d go beyond t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e Crow I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n and t h e e x e c u t i o n s t a t u t e s a r e n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y and a r e o t h e r w i s e a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l c i t i z e n s o f Montana. T h i s a p p e a l e s s e n t i a l l y b o i l s down t o whether t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n g r a n t e d i n Mescalero i s t h e same a s t h a t d e f i n e d by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n Riggs and Pam-to-Pee, o r i s it merely t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e n d e r a judgment i n c a p a b l e of e n f o r c e ment. The l a t t e r would be a b s u r d . Pee, - a t p. A s t h e C o u r t s a i d i n Pam-to- 226: "The award o f e x e c u t i o n i s a p a r t , and a n e s s e n t i a l p a r t , of e v e r y judgment p a s s e d by a c o u r t e x e r c i s i n g j u d i c i a l power. I t i s no judgment, i n t h e l e g a l s e n s e of t h e t e r m , w i t h o u t it. Without such a n award t h e judgment would be i n o p e r a t i v e and n u g a t o r y , l e a v i n g t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y w i t h o u t a remedy. I t would be m e r e l y an o p i n i o n , which would remain a dead l e t t e r , and w i t h o u t any o p e r a t i o n upon t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s * * * . I " To a v o i d such a n i l l o g i c a l s i t u a t i o n we h o l d t h a t a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n from a s t a t e c o u r t i s v a l i d w i t h i n t h e I n d i a n reserv a t i o n when such i s a means of e n f o r c i n g a v a l i d judgment o f t h a t court. AS we s t a t e d i n Old E l k a t 643: " I n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s , d u e p r o c e s s , i m p a r t i a l and e f f e c t i v e m a i n t e n a n c e o f j u s t i c e and t h e p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e i n and r e s p e c t f o r t h e c o u r t s a r e paramount i n t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e s e k i n d s o f matters. However, t h e s e r i g h t s and d u t i e s a r e owed t o a l l c i t i z e n s n o t o n l y t h o s e r e s i d i n g within t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of a n Indian reservation. The c i t i z e n s o f Montana g e n e r a l l y and Big Horn County p a r t i c u l a r l y would be g r o s s l y d e p r i v e d i f under t h e g u i s e o f i n d i v i d u a l d u e p r o c e s s t h e y n o t o n l y had no s p e e d y , a d e q u a t e no remedy, b u t - remedy a t a l l . " A s s t a t e d e a r l i e r , t h e s t a t e c o u r t was t h e o n l y forum available t o the appellant. matter jurisdiction. The t r i b a l c o u r t l a c k e d s u b j e c t No f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n c o u l d b e i n v o k e d , s i n c e t h e r e was no f e d e r a l q u e s t i o n , no d i v e r s i t y o f c i t i z e n s h i p , and t h e amount i n c o n t r o v e r s y was less t h a n $10,000. The s t a t e c o u r t had t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e n d e r i t s judgment, n o t e v e n t h e respondents c o n t e s t t h i s . Such would n o t be a judgment w i t h o u t t h e power t o e n f o r c e t h e same. The o n l y a v a i l a b l e and p e a c e f u l means of e n f o r c e m e n t t o t h e a p p e l l a n t was t h e w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n from t h e s t a t e c o u r t . us-off-the-reservation" Without s u c h , t h e r e s u l t would be a " c a t c h s i t u a t i o n , which c o u l d p o s s i b l y l e a d t o breaches o f t h e peace. I n Old E l k w e h e l d t h a t a n I n d i a n may n o t v i o l a t e t h e c r i m i n a l l a w s o f t h i s s t a t e w h i l e o f f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , and t h e n r e t u r n t o t h e s a n c t u a r y o f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n and throw up h i s I n d i a n s t a t u s a s a s h i e l d a g a i n s t enforcement of t h o s e c r i m i n a l laws. W e now h o l d t h e same i s t r u e f o r t h e c i v i l l a w s o f t h i s s t a t e . W e a r e n o t unmindful o f Annis v . Dewey County Bank, 335 F.Supp. 1 3 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) c i t e d by r e s p o n d e n t s . The f e d e r a l c o u r t c i t e d a u t h o r i t y from S o u t h Dakota and Minnesota i n h o l d i n g t h a t s t a t e o f f i c i a l s had no j u r i s d i c t i o n on I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n s e i t h e r t o s e r v e p r o c e s s on a n e n r o l l e d member o r t o e n f o r c e a s t a t e judgment. The law of t h i s s t a t e i s d i r e c t l y c o n t r a r y and i n a c c o r d w i t h N e w Mexico, a s e v i d e n c e d by Old E l k . W e do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e law c i t e d by t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t i n A n n i s , n o r do w e a g r e e w i t h their rationale. The d e c i s i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e i n j u n c t i o n d i s s o l v e d and v a c Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: District Hon. R o b e r t , J u d g e , s i t t i n g n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.