Legal Opinion

Bigpond v. Page

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 7, 1926No. 16371PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

THREADGILL, C.

This action was brought by plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, against defendants in error, as defendants, to cancel a guardian’s deed, and for possession of an undivided 1/3 interest in and to the S. W. 1 /4 of sec. 6, and the N. W. 1 /4 of sec 7, T. 18 N., R. 12 E., in Creek ■ county, and for damages in the !sum of $503i-000.

Plaintiff was a full-blood Creek Indian, enrolled as a new-born opposite roll No. ‘ 935. He was the only child and sole and only heir at* law of his father, James Big-pond. who was' a member of the Creek Tribe of Indians with roll No. 7016. Sa.d…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Michoud v. GirodSupreme Court of the United States · 1846
  2. Graffam v. BurgessSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  3. In re CowderyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. McKinley v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
  5. McIntosh v. HoltgraveSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Tucker v. LeonardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  2. Murphy v. WalkupSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953
  3. Harrison v. ReedSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API