Bates v. Printup

New York County Courts

Bates v. Printup

31 Misc. 17, 64 N.Y.S. 561

CourtNew York County Courts

DecidedMarch 15, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 Misc. 17 (Bates v. Printup) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bates v. Printup, 31 Misc. 17, 64 N.Y.S. 561 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Hickey, J.

The defendants and appellants are Tuscarora Indians. Judgment was rendered against them in the court below in an action sounding in tort. From that judgment they have appealed to this' court, and the only question presented for consideration is, whether or not the courts of this State have jurisdiction in such actions over Tuscarora Indians. This question must be answered in the affirmative, for it appears that the courts have already so decided. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Hill, 60 Hun, 347; Crouse v. N. Y., Penn. & Ohio R. R. Co., 49 id. 576; Jemmison v. Kennedy, 55 id. 47.

It has been suggested by counsel that this court write at length upon this question. We see no occasion for so doing. So far as this court is concerned, the question is not an open one, as the decisions referred to must control.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hickey, J.

The defendants and appellants are Tuscarora Indians. Judgment was rendered against them in the court below in an action sounding in tort. From that judgment they have appealed to this' court, and the only question presented for consideration is, whether or not the courts of this State have jurisdiction in such actions over Tuscarora Indians. This question must be answered in the affirmative, for it appears that the courts have already so decided. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Hill, 60 Hun, 347; Crouse v. N. Y., Penn. & Ohio R. R. Co., 49 id. 576; Jemmison v. Kennedy, 55 id. 47.

It has been suggested by counsel that this court write at length upon this question. We see no occasion for so doing. So far as this court is concerned, the question is not an open one, as the decisions referred to must control.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 17, 64 N.Y.S. 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-printup-nycountyct-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack