Turner v. Fish
Mississippi Supreme Court
ON appeal from the northern district chancery court at Car-rollton ; Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor. The material facts of the case are contained in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
ON appeal from the northern district chancery court at Car-rollton ; Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor. The material facts of the case are contained in the opinion of the court. Who was entitled to the reservation under the treaty, Smith, the white man, or his wife, the Choctaw Indian ? In order to arrive at a correct conclusion on this point, we must look to the intention of the contracting parties, for the intention of the parties must govern in the construction of any treaty, and especially of this treaty. ■ 4 How. 559. What was their intention in making these reservations?…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Fishes
This is an appeal from a final decree of the vice-chancery court at Carrollton, dismissing the complainants’ bill.
The complainants claim the land in controversy, as heirs at *310law of Freeman J. Smith, and Eliza Smith, his wife; both of whom are alleged to be dead, — the latter having died in 1836, and the former in 1842.
It is alleged that some time previous to the year 1830, Smith, who was a white man, intermarried with the said Eliza, who was an Indian woman of the Choctaw nation. That the parties, after the marriage, continued to reside in said nation, on the land named in the bill. That they…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gilbert v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of ChickashaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Anderson v. MathewsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Mowbray & Robinson Co. v. KelleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916