123 N.W. 146 (Wis. 1909), Smith v. Smith

Citation:123 N.W. 146, 140 Wis. 599
Opinion Judge:WILLIAM H. TIMLIN, J.
Party Name:SMITH, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respondent
Attorney:For the appellant there was a brief by Cady, Strehlow & Jaseph, and oral argument by S. H. Cady and L. D. Jaseph. M. E. Davis, for the respondent,
Case Date:November 12, 1909
Court:Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Page 146

123 N.W. 146 (Wis. 1909)

140 Wis. 599

SMITH, Appellant,


SMITH, Respondent

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

November 12, 1909

Argued October 26, 1909.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Brown county: S.D. HASTINGS, Circuit Judge. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

For the appellant there was a brief by Cady, Strehlow & Jaseph, and oral argument by S. H. Cady and L. D. Jaseph. Among other authorities they cited Ott v. Boring, 139 Wis. 403, 121 N.W. 126; Basse v. State, 129 Wis. 171, 108 N.W. 64; In re Heirs of House, 132 Wis. 212, 112 N.W. 27; sec. 2274, Stats. (1898); Schiefelbein v. Fidelity & C. Co. 139 Wis. 612, 120 N.W. 398; Sufferling v. Heyl & Patterson, 139 Wis. 510, 121 N.W. 251; Menn v. State, 132 Wis. 61, 112 N.W. 38; Baker v. State, 47 Wis. 111, 2 N.W. 110; Goyke v. State (dis. op.) 136 Wis. 557, 117 N.W. 1027, 1126; Hofer v. State, 130 Wis. 576, 110 N.W. 391; Grotjan v. Rice, 124 Wis. 253, 102 N.W. 551; Benedict v. Horner, 13 Wis. 256; Richmond v. State, 19 Wis. 307; Miller v. C. & N.W. R. Co. 133 Wis. 183, 113 N.W. 384; Kelley v. Crawford, 112 Wis. 368, 88 N.W. 296.

M. E. Davis, for the respondent, cited Jones v. Roberts, 84 Wis. 465, 54 N.W. 917; Gillett v. Treganza, 13 Wis. 472; State ex rel. Beals v. Probate Court, 25 Minn. 22; Gary, Probate Law (3d ed.) §§ 630, 633.


[140 Wis. 600] WILLIAM H. TIMLIN, J.

The county court of Outagamie county granted letters of administration upon the estate of Ezekiel Smith, an Indian, to Hattie C. Smith, his widow, and thereafter it was stipulated, prior to the time for final distribution, that the question whether Taylor Smith was the son and sole heir at law of decedent should be tried before said county court at a time and place stated. We are informed by counsel that the department of the United States government having charge of Indian affairs until recently approved, recognized, and acted upon this mode of ascertaining Indian heirs for the purpose of identifying the person or persons for whom the United States held the title in trust. The county court heard the evidence and determined that Taylor Smith was the son of decedent, but that Hattie C. Smith was his widow and sole heir. An appeal was taken to the circuit court from this order and the place of trial changed to Brown county, where, after a trial of the question, the circuit court found that Ezekiel...

To continue reading