Painter v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters'1 statement of tlie case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant and decedent at the time of the depreda tions were citizens of the United States, residing in Humboldt County, State of California, and in the years 1859, I860,1861, and 1862 the said Indians destroyed property belonging- to claimant and decedent consisting of houses, horses, and cattle which, at the time of the destruction, was worth more than the sum of…
Read the full summary
The Reporters'1 statement of tlie case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant and decedent at the time of the depreda tions were citizens of the United States, residing in Humboldt County, State of California, and in the years 1859, I860,1861, and 1862 the said Indians destroyed property belonging- to claimant and decedent consisting of houses, horses, and cattle which, at the time of the destruction, was worth more than the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000). The property was destroyed without just cause or provocation on the part of the owner or…
1Opinion of the CourtWeldon, J.
The amended petition, filed by leave of the court on the 13th of February, 1897, is iu the name of Kobert Painter, for himself and as administrator of Herman Painter, deceased.
The findings show that the plaintiff and the decedent were the joint owners of the property destroyed in the county of Humboldt, State of California, by the defendant Indians. .The *128case is contested on two grounds: First, that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the ownership of the property and the identity of the Indians; and, second, that at the time of the alleged depredations the defendant Indians were not…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Leighton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Leighton v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1894
- Valk v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1894
- Marks v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Karuk Tribe of California v. Carol McConnell Ammon, Leslie Ammon, Elsie McCovey Bacon, Julia Lauretta Bartow, Ollie Roberts Foseide, Bonita Bacon Green, Janice M. Green, Dorothy Williams Haberman, Richard L. Haberman, Evelina Hoffman, Mary Gist Jackson, Martin Kinder, Sr., Rachel L. Knight, Ernest Lewis, Jr., Annie Mitchell Love, Ardith McConnell Michael McConnell Robert B. McConnell Walter C. McKinnon Thelma W. McLaughlin Steven J. Metcalfe, Edward E. Mitchell, Veta Gillespie Mitchell, Gertrude v. Mollier, Edward Moore David E. O'neill, Herbert L. O'neill, Barbara E. Orcutt, Lawrence E. Orcutt, David Eric Severns, Maria E. Tripp, and Kathryn Ichelson Wild,plaintiffs-Appellants, and Yurok Indian Tribe v. United States, and Hoopa Valley TribeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Karuk Tribe v. AmmonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000