Privett v. Rentie

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Privett v. Rentie

1919 OK 234, 182 P. 898, 75 Okla. 191, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 69

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 22, 1919

Docket9220

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1919 OK 234 (Privett v. Rentie) 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

Privett v. Rentie, 1919 OK 234, 182 P. 898, 75 Okla. 191, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 69 (Okla. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

KANE, J.

This action involves the devolution of the allotment of Ressie Carter, deceased, a citizen of the Creek Nation. who died after statehood, leaving surviving her her father, a Cherokee freedman and noncitizen of the Creek Nation, and several brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces whe were citizens of the Creek Nation.

The only question presented for review is stated by counsel for plaintiffs in error in their brief, as follows:

“Whether or not the lands in question, upon the death of Ressie Carter, the allottee, in the month of July, 1911, descended to the Cherokee freedman father, Nelson Carter, or to the Creek freedmen brothers and sisters and their descendants.”

That the estate descended according to the laws of descent and distribution of the state of Oklahoma was definitely settled in the *192 case of Jefferson v. Cook, 53 Okla. 272, 62 L. Ed. 287.

The case then turns on whether the first proviso in section 6 of the Supplemental Creek Agreement, which provides that only citizens of the Creek Nation or their Creek descendants shall inherit lands of the Creek Nation, qualifies the Oklahoma law as it was held to qualify the laws of Arkansas, in Washington v. Miller, 235 U. S. 422, 59 L. Ed. 295. This question has been decided adversely to the contention of counsel for plaintiffs in error in the following cases: Thompson v. Cornelius, 53 Okla. 85, 156 Pac. 602; Hughes v. Bell, 55 Okla. 555, 155 Pac. 604; Jefferson v. Cook, 53 Okla. 272, 155 Pac. 852; Donald v. Ralston, 65 Oklahoma, 166 Pac. 405; Moffer v. Jones, 67 Oklahoma, 169 Pac. 652.

Counsel concedes that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed upon the authority of these cases unless he can so thoroughly present the proposition of law involved that the court will be persuaded to adopt his viewpoint and recede from its previous position.

As, after reading counsel’s brief, we are still unconvinced that the opinions in the foregoing cases are wrong, it follows that the judgment rendered herein, which follows them, must be affirmed.

SHARP, JOHNSON, HARRISON, and Mc-NEJLL, JJ., concur.

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

KANE, J.

This action involves the devolution of the allotment of Ressie Carter, deceased, a citizen of the Creek Nation. who died after statehood, leaving surviving her her father, a Cherokee freedman and noncitizen of the Creek Nation, and several brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces whe were citizens of the Creek Nation.

The only question presented for review is stated by counsel for plaintiffs in error in their brief, as follows:

“Whether or not the lands in question, upon the death of Ressie Carter, the allottee, in the month of July, 1911, descended to the Cherokee freedman father, Nelson Carter, or to the Creek freedmen brothers and sisters and their descendants.”

That the estate descended according to the laws of descent and distribution of the state of Oklahoma was definitely settled in the *192 case of Jefferson v. Cook, 53 Okla. 272, 62 L. Ed. 287.

The case then turns on whether the first proviso in section 6 of the Supplemental Creek Agreement, which provides that only citizens of the Creek Nation or their Creek descendants shall inherit lands of the Creek Nation, qualifies the Oklahoma law as it was held to qualify the laws of Arkansas, in Washington v. Miller, 235 U. S. 422, 59 L. Ed. 295. This question has been decided adversely to the contention of counsel for plaintiffs in error in the following cases: Thompson v. Cornelius, 53 Okla. 85, 156 Pac. 602; Hughes v. Bell, 55 Okla. 555, 155 Pac. 604; Jefferson v. Cook, 53 Okla. 272, 155 Pac. 852; Donald v. Ralston, 65 Oklahoma, 166 Pac. 405; Moffer v. Jones, 67 Oklahoma, 169 Pac. 652.

Counsel concedes that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed upon the authority of these cases unless he can so thoroughly present the proposition of law involved that the court will be persuaded to adopt his viewpoint and recede from its previous position.

As, after reading counsel’s brief, we are still unconvinced that the opinions in the foregoing cases are wrong, it follows that the judgment rendered herein, which follows them, must be affirmed.

SHARP, JOHNSON, HARRISON, and Mc-NEJLL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1919 OK 234, 182 P. 898, 75 Okla. 191, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/privett-v-rentie-okla-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack