
    THE OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 27537.
    Decided November 4, 1907.]
    
      On the claimants’ attorneys’ Motion.
    
    The jurisdictional act provides that “if judgment he rendered for the petitioner,” the court “shall award a proper attorney fee for the attorneys of record.” Judgment is rendered in favor of the claimants (ante p. 240) and the attornej's now produce a contract whereby the claimants agree to pay them 25 per cent of the judgment which may be recovered.
    I.It is the duty of the attorneys of record in an Indian case to render reasonable services after judgment to the end that the roll upon which their clients will be paid shall be complete and just.
    II.The court in such a case will direct that payment of a part of. the fee allowed be withheld until the services subsequent to ■ the judgment shall have been rendered.
    III.Where the jurisdictional act provides that the court “ shall award a proper attorney fee,” the court can not consider, when fixing the amount of the fee, a contract between the claimants and the attorneys agreeing upon a rate of compensation.
    
      The Refortevs’ statement of the case:
    The grounds of the motion will be found on the opinion of the court.
    
      Mr. Chester Howe and Messrs. Dudley & Michener for the motion.
    
      Mr. Franklin W. Collins (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Van Orsdel) for the defendants.
   PeR Cueiam:

The court, upon motion of the attorneys for the claimant, has made an order allowing as attorneys’ fees 15 per cent of the judgment allowed to the claimants, 12- per cent to be paid out of any funds available therefor, and the-balance of 8 per cent to be paid when the roll of the claimant Indians shall be completed and approved.

The payment of a part of the attorneys’ fees allowed has been deferred, as stated, for the reason that the court considers that it is the duty of the claimants’ attorneys to render all reasonable services to the end that the roll shall be complete and just; and hence until such completion their duties in the case will not all have been discharged. That some professional services in that behalf, within the limits of professional ethics, can be rendered seems apparent to the court.

It may be well to add that upon the hearing of this motion the claimants’ attorneys presented to the court a contract entered into by them with the- claimants providing for the payment of an attorneys’ fee of 25 per cent of. the amount of the judgment; but this was not taken into consideration by the court for the reason that the jurisdictional act provides “ that the Court of Claims shall advance- said cause upon the docket, and, if judgment be rendered for the petitioner, shall award a proper attorney fee for the attorneys of record, to be paid on separate warrants from the amount recovered.”  