
    LANGFORD’S CASE.
    (12 C. Cls. R., 338; 101 U. S. R., 341.)
    William G. Langford, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
    
      On the claimant’s Appeal.
    
    
      The American Board for Foreign Missions occupy a tract in Idah-o. Being forced bg Indian hostilities, they abandon the mission with the intent of returning. Before they can reoccupy, an Indianagent takes possession of the mission station for an agency. By subsequent treaty with the Nez Percé tribe, it is reserved as an Indian reservation. The American Board convey their title to the claimant. He recovers judgment in a suit against the agent and is put in possession? birí is subsequently evicted by a military force. The secretary of the Interior direots the agent to retain possession and disputes the right or title of the claimant. He brings this action to recover rent for use and ocenpation.
    
    Tlie court Mow decides that, though the Washington Territorial Act (10 Stafc. L., 172, § 1) confirms “the title to the land” “occupied as missionary stations ”, the statutory grant nevertheless was subject to the outstanding title of the Indians, and the subsequent treaty with them wasparamount law. Judgment for the defendants. The claimant appeals.
    The judgment of the court below is affirmed. The Supreme Court nowholds that inasmuch as the statutory jurisdiction of the court below is limited to actions on contract, the statute must bo construed to refer to actions known at common law as ex contractu., and that tlie court therefore had no jurisdiction of this case.
   Mr. Justice Miller

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, April 19, 1880.  