
    Dana against Dana.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1817.
    The act sess. 36 veCto9therejn! stat‘e-W(2h‘ittlL! mereiy°protect onetda nation, from suits on contacts, while resuimg on the lan<l? reserved ^“bCe,.eve1rdiheir ¡)yS.'*!,enI1(]cean"¡a? f contract, “may Eir*andSisemt ph-adiug it m abatemeot
    THIS was an action of debt on an arbitration bond. The deelaration stated the submission to arbitrators, and their award that the defendant should pay the plaintiff the sum of 132 dollars and 98 cents, and should pay the arbitrators the sum of seven dollars for their fees; .and the breaches assigned are for the - * _ 0 non-payment or those sums. The defendant pleaded m bar, that 1 1 7 the plaintiff ought not to have or maintain his action, because, the defendant, at the time of making the writing obligatory in the declaration mentioned, was, ever since has been, and still is, an Indian residing on lands reserved to the Oneida Indians, within the purview of the second section of the act, relative to the different tribes and nations of Indians within this state, passed 10th of April, 1813. The plaintiff demurred, and showed for cause of demurrer, that the disability of the defendant was pleaded in bar, whereas it was merely temporary, and continued no longer than the defendant should actually reside on lands reserved to the Oneida Indians, and that the defence was only available as a plea in abatement. The defendant joined in demuner; and the same was submitted to the court without argument.
   Spencer, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The is, whether the plea is good as a perpetual bar, or is temporary disability to contract, and should have been pleaded in abatement.

It seems to me, that the plea is well pleaded. The statute provides, that no person shall sue or maintain any action on any bond, &c. against any of the Indians, called the Slockbridge Indians, or of the Seneca tribe, or nation, nor against any Indian residing in Br<=.lhertown, or on any lands reserved to the Oneida, Onondaga, or Capuga Indians. The object and policy of this statutory inhibition to sue these Indians on contracts made with them, has already been expounded by this court (7 Johns, Rep. 290. and 9 Johns. Rep. 362.) We considered the statute as a guard against the imposition and frauds to which that unfortunate race of men are exposed, from their ignorance and mental debasement. The statute was not intended as a temporary protection from suits, limited to the residence of these Indians on their reservations; for the Stockbridge and Seneca tribes are protected from suits on contracts, without reference to their locality; and why should not the other tribes receive the same protection ? A fair, liberal, and just interpretation of the statute affords them the same shield,

Judgment for the defendant.  