Hulley v. Stidham

1 Citing case

  1. McCrary v. Scott

    241 P. 774 (Okla. 1925)   Cited 1 times

    Johnson and Coon, however, contend that Tom Tiger possessed Creek blood and his grandchildren were enrolled as Creeks, and concede that Tom Tiger could not inherit, but contend the grandchildren do. We know of no law that authorizes a person to inherit property when the person who is living, through whom his right of inheritance must come, could not inherit. They cite Minshall v. Berryhill, 83 Okla. 100, 205 P. 932, Grease v. McNac, supra, and Hulley v. Stidham, 77 Okla. 315, 188 P. 879, but these cases are not in point. Whether they would be in point if Tom Tiger had died prior to the death of Sam Tiger and not enrolled as a Seminole, we express no opinion. But it must be conceded that the allotment of Sam Tiger came to him by virtue of his mother being a Creek Indian and of the Creek Tribe.