Rose v. . Bunn
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal .from the Supreme Court. The action was in the nature of replevin for the taking of three hundred and twenty sheep.
Read the full summary
Appeal .from the Supreme Court. The action was in the nature of replevin for the taking of three hundred and twenty sheep. The answer set forth that the defendants, and several Other persons named, were possessed of a certain close upon the Shinpecock hills, ip the town of Southampton, in the county of Suffolk, and that the sheep mentioned in the complaint were wrongfully upon the said close, eating and destroying the corn there and doing damage, wherefore the defendants, and the other persons, took them as a distress, as they lawfully might, &c. The parties entered into a stipulation by…
1Opinion of the CourtDenio, J.
It is the most favorable position for the defendants to assume that the lease of 1703 inured,- according, to its terms and obvious intention, to the use of the Shinnecock Indians in perpetuity, or at least during the long term granted, as though they bore a corporate character which would authorize them to take and hold land as a tribe; and I shall accordingly so assume. It might be difficult, however, to maintain that they possessed such a capacity in respect to private grants and conveyances, if the case turned upon that question. The controversy must therefore depend upon the proper…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hills v. MillerNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
3Cited by4 opinions
- Strasson v. MontgomeryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
- Martin v. SchichtlSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Andrus v. National Sugar Refining Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Schoonmaker v. HoytNew York Supreme Court · 1893