Salois v. United States

Francis Salois brought a claim against the United States and the Sioux Indians for three separate property depredations. The Court of Claims held that it lacked jurisdiction over the first claim because the Sioux tribe was at war with the United States at the time of the incident, rendering the Indian indemnity statutes inapplicable. The second claim was dismissed for insufficient evidence, as the only proof was an unsupported witness account of a moccasin footprint. Regarding the third claim, the court found a variance between the allegation of Sioux depredation and the evidence suggesting Cheyenne involvement, but granted the claimant leave to amend the petition to name the Cheyennes as parties.

Claimant brought claims against the United States and Sioux Indians for three property depredations. The court dismissed the first claim for lack of jurisdiction due to the tribe being at war, the second for insufficient evidence based solely on a witness account of a footprint, and found a variance in the third between alleged Sioux involvement and evidence pointing to Cheyennes. The court granted leave to amend the petition to name the correct Indian parties as defendants within thirty days, suspending proceedings in the interim.