Tuttle v. Moore
Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory
Appeal from the'United States court for the Northern district. John R. Thomas, Judge. Action by Napoleon B. Moore, plaintiff, and the Creek Nation, intervener, against Dwight W. Tuttle and others. Judgment in favor of plaintiff and intervener. Defendants appeal. The plaintiff below (appellee here), on the 25th day of August, 1900, filed his complaint against the defendants below (appellants here) in the Northern district, Ind.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the'United States court for the Northern district. John R. Thomas, Judge. Action by Napoleon B. Moore, plaintiff, and the Creek Nation, intervener, against Dwight W. Tuttle and others. Judgment in favor of plaintiff and intervener. Defendants appeal. The plaintiff below (appellee here), on the 25th day of August, 1900, filed his complaint against the defendants below (appellants here) in the Northern district, Ind. T., and alleged: “That the defendants were appointed under the provisions of the so-called ‘Curtis Bill’ as commissioners for the Muskogee town site, and are duly…
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
The appellants have filed 14 specifications of error, but discuss the same under three heads, as follows: “First, all that portion of the record which relates to lands or lots not described or embraced within the original petition of Napoleon B. Moore; second, rulings of the court upon evidence;. and third, the constitutionality of section 15 of the Curtis act. ”
Under the first head the appellants assign for error the refusal of the court to strike out on motion of appellants certain allegations in the petition of the Creek Nation relating to other property than that in which Moore, the…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Worcester v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Cherokee Nation v. State of GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- United States v. KagamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Fong Yue Ting v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Clendaniel v. ConradSupreme Court of Delaware · 1912
- State Ex Rel. Manhattan Const. Co. v. BarnesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Highland Boy Gold Mining Co. v. StrickleyUtah Supreme Court · 1904
- Barnett v. BodleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1959
- Badeaux v. RyersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.