Seneca Nation of Indians v. Hugaboom
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the fifth judicial department, entered upon, an order made March 25, 1890, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a verdict and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff is entitled to all the lands embraced in the treaty sanctioned by the government, to it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the fifth judicial department, entered upon, an order made March 25, 1890, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a verdict and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff is entitled to all the lands embraced in the treaty sanctioned by the government, to it. (Marble v. McMinn, 57 Barb. 610; Fellows v. Deniston, 23 N. Y. 420.) The construction of the boundary line under this treaty must be…
1Opinion of the CourtBradley, J.
The action is ejectment, and was brought in the name of the plaintiff, pursuant to statute. (B. 1845, ch. 150 ; 4 Edm. 375.)
It is alleged that the land in question is a part of the Cattaraugus Indian ¡Reservation, by which the defendant’s land is bounded on the north. The contest has relation to the location of the south line of the reservation. The plaintiff put in evidence a treaty made with the Seneca nation in 1797, and known as the Robert Morris treaty, also one of June 30, 1802. And it is insisted that by the latter, which describes the lines of the reservation, it is established that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Seneca Nation of Indians v. ChristieNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Kingsland v. ChittendenNew York Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by1 opinion
- Herse v. MazzaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904