From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bates v. Printup

County Court, Niagara County
Mar 1, 1900
31 Misc. 17 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1900)

Opinion

March, 1900.

Brong Jeffery, for appellants.

W.E. Lockner, for respondent.


The defendants and appellants are Tuscarora Indians. Judgment was rendered against them in the court below in an action sounding in tort. From that judgment they have appealed to this court, and the only question presented for consideration is, whether or not the courts of this State have jurisdiction in such actions over Tuscarora Indians. This question must be answered in the affirmative, for it appears that the courts have already so decided. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Hill, 60 Hun, 347; Crouse v. N.Y., Penn. Ohio R.R. Co., 49 id. 576; Jemmison v. Kennedy, 55 id. 47.

It has been suggested by counsel that this court write at length upon this question. We see no occasion for so doing. So far as this court is concerned, the question is not an open one, as the decisions referred to must control.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Bates v. Printup

County Court, Niagara County
Mar 1, 1900
31 Misc. 17 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1900)
Case details for

Bates v. Printup

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM H. BATES, Respondent, v . DANIEL PRINTUP et al., Appellants

Court:County Court, Niagara County

Date published: Mar 1, 1900

Citations

31 Misc. 17 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1900)
64 N.Y.S. 561

Citing Cases

Red Hawk v. Joines

(Act June 2d, 1924, Chap. 233, 43 Stat. 253.) As a citizen he could come as a suitor in the courts of the…