Hamilton v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant, James H. Hamilton, and his partner, Samuel C. Humes, at the date of the taking hereinafter set forth, were citizens of the United States. II.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant, James H. Hamilton, and his partner, Samuel C. Humes, at the date of the taking hereinafter set forth, were citizens of the United States. II. At the date of the taking hereinafter set forth, Samuel C. Humes and James H. Hamilton were partners, and composed the firm of Humes & Hamilton, and as such occupied certain land and buildings, to wit: At Fort Washita, Ind. T., the storehouse, dwelling, additions, outbuildings, and land adjacent, known as the Gooding property, of the…
1Opinion of the CourtBooti-i, J.
The first question presented by the record before us is one of jurisdiction. The findings disclose that this is a suit to recover the value of certain property of the claimant alleged to have been illegally taken by the Chickasaw Indians in the year 1867. Hamilton & Humes, partners, were, in the years 1858, 1859, I860, and 1861 licensed Indian traders, engaged in trading with the Chickasaw Indians, and for the purpose of conducting their business owned and occupied three storehouses, one located at Fort Washita and the other two at Tishomingo, within the Chickasaw Reservation. In 1867 all of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jaeger v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1898
- Davidson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1899
- Ayres v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- Self v. Cher-AE Heights Indian Community etc.California Court of Appeal · 2021