Talmascy v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Talmascy v. Thomas

1931 OK 204, 5 P.2d 759, 148 Okla. 260, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 874

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 28, 1931

Docket19935

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK 204 (Talmascy v. Thomas) 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

Talmascy v. Thomas, 1931 OK 204, 5 P.2d 759, 148 Okla. 260, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 874 (Okla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

RILEY, J.

The question presented in this case is substantially the same as in En-le-te-ke e.t al. v. Beasley et al., No. 19939, this day decided, 148 Okla. 255, 298 Pac. 011, and with which this case is consolidated, except there is no direct allegation or admission that the mother of the allot-tee conveyed her interest in the allotted lands during her lifetime. However, the petition does allege the death of the mother and fails to allege, that she died seized of an interest in the land, nor do plaintiffs attempt to deraign the title claimed by them by or through the mother, but claim their interest by inheritance direct from the al-lottee. The case was presented below-and here upon the same theory as the Ein-le-te-ke Case. Treating it the same here, the demurrers were properly sustained. The judgment is affirmed.

LESTER, C. J., and HEFNER, CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, McNEILL, and KORNBGAY, JJ., concur. CLARK, V. C. J., not participating.

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

RILEY, J.

The question presented in this case is substantially the same as in En-le-te-ke e.t al. v. Beasley et al., No. 19939, this day decided, 148 Okla. 255, 298 Pac. 011, and with which this case is consolidated, except there is no direct allegation or admission that the mother of the allot-tee conveyed her interest in the allotted lands during her lifetime. However, the petition does allege the death of the mother and fails to allege, that she died seized of an interest in the land, nor do plaintiffs attempt to deraign the title claimed by them by or through the mother, but claim their interest by inheritance direct from the al-lottee. The case was presented below-and here upon the same theory as the Ein-le-te-ke Case. Treating it the same here, the demurrers were properly sustained. The judgment is affirmed.

LESTER, C. J., and HEFNER, CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, McNEILL, and KORNBGAY, JJ., concur. CLARK, V. C. J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK 204, 5 P.2d 759, 148 Okla. 260, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talmascy-v-thomas-okla-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack