Duran v. United States

Juan Antonio Duran sued the United States and the Apache Indians for property loss under the Indian Depredation Act. It was discovered that the Navajoes, not the Apaches, committed the act. The defendants objected to the misjoinder after the three-year statute of limitations had expired. The Court of Claims held that because the original petition was filed timely, it served as both process and declaration. Therefore, the court has the authority to allow an amendment to substitute the correct party (the Navajoes) even after the jurisdictional period has passed, in order to fulfill the statutory mandate to render judgment against the responsible tribe.

Claimant sued the United States and Apache Indians under the Indian Depredation Act for property loss, but evidence showed Navajoes were responsible. Defendants objected to misjoinder after the statute of limitations expired, yet the court held the timely original petition allowed amendment to substitute the correct party (Navajoes). The petition was dismissed against the Apaches, with leave to amend and remand to the general docket.

• A petition under the Indian Depredation Act is both process and declaration.
• Defects in the naming of parties in the petition are matters of amendment, not jurisdictional bars.
• The court has an implied mandate to identify and hold the correct tribe liable, necessitating the power to amend parties.