Carpenter v. Pierce

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Carpenter v. Pierce

1899 OK 119, 59 P. 1118, 9 Okla. 132, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 12

DecidedNovember 7, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 1899 OK 119 (Carpenter v. Pierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenter v. Pierce, 1899 OK 119, 59 P. 1118, 9 Okla. 132, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 12 (Okla. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an action commenced by the plaintiff in the district court of Pawnee county sitting at Pawhuska, for the purpose of enjoining the sheriff of said county and his deputies from levying certain tax warrants on the property of the plaintiff. A restraining order was issued, but upon final hearing of the case, it was dismissed, and the restraining o^der set aside. From this judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.

In the case of Jemima Goodson v. The United States, 7 Oklahoma, page 117, this court enunciated the rule that the Pawhuska district court has jurisdiction only of those actions, civil or criminal, in which a resident member of the Osage or Kansas tribes of Indians is a defendant, and that all other actions must be prosecuted in the district court of Pawnee.

Still adhering to this view of the law, the judgment below should be sustained at the costs of the appellant.

It is so ordered.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an action commenced by the plaintiff in the district court of Pawnee county sitting at Pawhuska, for the purpose of enjoining the sheriff of said county and his deputies from levying certain tax warrants on the property of the plaintiff. A restraining order was issued, but upon final hearing of the case, it was dismissed, and the restraining o^der set aside. From this judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.

In the case of Jemima Goodson v. The United States, 7 Oklahoma, page 117, this court enunciated the rule that the Pawhuska district court has jurisdiction only of those actions, civil or criminal, in which a resident member of the Osage or Kansas tribes of Indians is a defendant, and that all other actions must be prosecuted in the district court of Pawnee.

Still adhering to this view of the law, the judgment below should be sustained at the costs of the appellant.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1899 OK 119, 59 P. 1118, 9 Okla. 132, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-pierce-okla-1899.