From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoteyabi v. Vaughn

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
May 14, 1912
124 P. 63 (Okla. 1912)

Opinion

No. 1802

Opinion Filed May 14, 1912.

INDIANS — Lands — Allotment — Conveyance. Lands allotted (homestead and surplus) under the provisions of section 22, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, approved July 1, 1902, in the name of a deceased member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians, are alienable by his heirs after lawful selection, prior to the lapse of one, three, or five years, and prior to the issuance of certificate of patent. Hancock et al. v. Mutual Trust Co. et al., 24 Okla. 391, 103 P. 566.

(Syllabus by Robertson, C.)

Error from District Court, Garvin County; R. McMillan, Judge.

Action by T. H. Vaughn and others against Sillis Hoteyabi and others to quiet title to real estate. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

William J. Gregg and John B. Meserve, for plaintiffs in error.

Everest, Smith Campbell, for defendants in error.


This case involves the consideration of the identical question decided by this court in the case of Hancock et al. v. Mutual Trust Company et al., decided July 13, 1909, and reported in 24 Okla. 391, 103 P. 566. The opinion in that case by Mr. Justice Dunn is conclusive as to the issue herein, and we hereby adopt and promulgate the opinion in that case as and for the opinion in this case. See, also, the recent case of J. S. Mullen et al. v. United States, 224 U.S. 448, 32 Sup. Ct. 494, 56 L.Ed. _____, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States April 15, 1912, which is also conclusive as to the issues herein.

For the reason assigned, the judgment of the district court of Garvin county should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Hoteyabi v. Vaughn

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
May 14, 1912
124 P. 63 (Okla. 1912)
Case details for

Hoteyabi v. Vaughn

Case Details

Full title:HOTEYABI et al. v. VAUGHN, et al

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: May 14, 1912

Citations

124 P. 63 (Okla. 1912)
124 P. 63

Citing Cases

Young et al. v. Chapman

There can be no dispute, however, but that Bunnie McCosar and his two children, Elliott McCosar and Kate…

Aldrich v. Hinds

The legal proposition presented involves the effect and operation of section 22 of Act Cong. April 26, 1906…