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.
Appeal from: 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 .
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: September 9 , 1976
Decided: ~ I C T 7 216
- 9'
7
F i l e d : '. ' ' icj/\;
Mr. 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.
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. 1 4 5 , 93
S.Ct. 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. 83,
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 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 . U.S. ex r e l . Riggs v. Johnson
County, 6 W a l l . 1 6 6 , 18 L.Ed 768 ( 1 8 6 8 ) ; Pam-to-Pee v . United
S t a t e s , 187 U.S. 371, 23 S . C t . 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
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 . )
a
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. S t a t e ex rel. Eisenhauer
v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 54 Mont. 1 7 2 , 168 P . 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 judg-
ment 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. Merchants C r e d i t S e r v i c e v . ChJteau Co. Bank, 112
Mont. 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. However,
i n McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Commission, 4 1 1 U.S. 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 en-
f 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 : State
S e c u r i t i e s , I n c . v . Anderson, 84 N.M. 629, 506 P.2d 786, 789;
Natewa v . Natewa, 84 N.M. 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 , Mont . , 552 P.2d 1394, 3 3 St.Rep.
637 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . 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 pro-
t 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 con-
t 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 . A s t h e C o u r t s a i d i n Pam-to-
- a t p.
Pee, 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 reser-
v 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
remedy, b u t - remedy a t a l l . "
no
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. 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
matter jurisdiction. 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 . Without s u c h , t h e r e s u l t would be a " c a t c h -
us-off-the-reservation" 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 judg-
ment. 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:
Hon. R o b e r t , District
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.