Nunn v. Hazelrigg
Decision Date | 08 July 1914 |
Docket Number | No,3968. |
Citation | 216 F. 330 |
Parties | NUNN v. HAZELRIGG. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
E. J Van Court, of Eufaula, Okl. (Van Court & Reubelt, of Eufaula Okl., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Benjamin Martin, Jr., of Muskogee, Okl. (Villard Martin, of Muskogee Okl., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before SANBORN and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and POPE, District Judge.
This suit was brought in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma in ejectment by the defendant in error, J. T. Hazelrigg, hereafter called the plaintiff, to recover an undivided one-half of approximately 108 acres of land, and against Charles J. Nunn, plaintiff in error hereafter called the defendant. The land in question is a part of the lands of the Creek Nation and constitutes the surplus allotment to one Tena Dan, now Cross. She was enrolled by the commission of the Five Civilized Tribes, known as the Dawes Commission, as an eighth blood Creek Indian. The petition was in a brief form, allowed by the laws of Oklahoma.
The answer alleges in substance: That the land in question was patented to Tena Dan by the principal chief of the Muskogee, or Creek, Nation September 3, 1902, and the patent was approved by the Acting Secretary of the Interior December 22, 1902. The land was conveyed April 22, 1904, by the said Tena Cross and husband by warranty deed to Mary A. Morrow, and on the 27th day of September, 1904, by the said Mary A. Morrow, a widow, by warranty deed to the defendant Charles J. Nunn. On November 4, 1907, said Tena Cross, under the name of Tena Dan, again conveyed said land by warranty deed to Thomas Haggard. On November 22, 1907, said Tena Cross, under that name, conveyed said land by warranty deed to Thomas Haggard to correct the error in the former deed. On November 5, 1907, Thomas Haggard and wife conveyed the land by warranty deed to Charles J. Nunn. The defendant alleges: That on the 27th day of September, 1904, he went into possession and occupancy of said lands under said deed from Mary A. Morrow, and that since said date his possession has been, and is now, exclusive, open, notorious, and adverse to all persons. That, at the time defendant purchased said land from the said Mary A. Morrow, he did so in good faith for the purpose of providing himself with a home, and paid, as a consideration for said deed, the full value of said land. That at said time the defendant knew the said Tena Cross, nee Dan, and her parents, and knew that she and her said parents claimed to be negroes, and were in fact negroes, and had no knowledge that the said Tena Dan was enrolled as a 'mixed blood Indian' on the rolls of the Creek Nation. That the defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief avers and charges, that plaintiff claims to derive his alleged title to said land under the deed hereafter referred to.
The commission to the Five Civilized Tribes authorized by section 16 of the act of March 3, 1893 (27 Stats. 612, 645, c. 209), and the provision of the act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stats. 910, 939, c. 189), and commonly known as the Dawes Commission, was authorized and directed by the act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stats. 321, 339, c. 398), to:
By the act of June 28, 1898 (30 Stats. 495, 503, c. 517), it is provided:
This makes it important to understand who were meant by Creek freedmen as used in this statute. African slavery existed among the Creeks before the Civil War. The Creeks made a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Norton v. Larney
... ... 104 F. 653, 44 C.C.A. 109; Malone v. Alderdice, 212 ... F. 668, 129 C.C.A. 204; Folk v. U.S., 233 F. 177, ... 147 C.C.A. 183; Nunn v. Hazelrigg, 216 F. 330, 132 ... C.C.A. 474; U.S. v. Atkins (C.C.A.) 268 F. 923. But ... the decisions of the Commission and the recitals and ... ...
-
Oates v. Freeman
...the finding of fact by the court the deed for it was void. Carter v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co., 58 Okla. --, 160 P. 319; Nunn v. Hazelrigg, 216 F. 330, 132 C. C. A. 474. ¶20 The rule to be deduced from a fair construction of the statute, and the authorities above cited, is, that where a Creek I......
-
Cowokochee v. Chapman
...citizen or freedman of Said tribes. * * *"--said:"This court, in Malone v. Alderdice, 212 F. 668, 129 C.C.A. 204, and in Nunn v. Hazelrigg, 216 F. 330, 132 C.C.A. 474, decided that: 'The commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, which made the enrollment of their citizens and freedmen, was a......
-
Kirby v. Parker
...37 F.2d 493; Malone v. Alderdice, 8 Cir., 212 F. 668; Kimberlin v. Commission to Five Civilized Tribes, 8 Cir., 104 F. 653; Nunn v. Hazelrigg, 8 Cir., 216 F. 330, 333; Bell v. Cook, C.C., 192 F. 597; Phillips et al. v. Byrd, 43 Okl. 556, 143 P. The government now presents to this court the ......