Samuel Gidney v. Sidney Chappel
Decision Date | 24 April 1916 |
Docket Number | No. 263,263 |
Citation | 241 U.S. 99,36 S.Ct. 492,60 L.Ed. 910 |
Parties | SAMUEL E. GIDNEY, Plff. in Err., v. SIDNEY C. CHAPPEL and J. C. Scully |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. William T. Hutchings for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Napoleon B. Maxey and Charles F. Runyan for defendants in error.
This was a suit to set aside a will probated in common form, and to avoid its probate. The suit was begun in the United States court for the Indian Territory, wherein the will had been probated, and was transferred to an Oklahoma court when that state was admitted into the Union. The plaintiff ultimately prevailed and the supreme court of the state affirmed the judgment. 38 Okla. 596, 134 Pac. 859, 43 Okla. 267, 142 Pac. 755.
The Federal question in the case is whether certain statutes bearing upon such a suit were put in force in the Indian Territory by the act of May 2, 1890, chap. 182, § 31, 26 Stat. at L. 81, whereby Congress adopted and extended over the Indian Territory certain general laws of Arkansas 'in force at the close of the session of the general assembly of that state of 1883, as published in 1884 in the volume known as Mansfield's Digest,' where 'not locally inapplicable or in conflict with' that or some other act of Congress. In Arkansas there were probate courts and courts of general jurisdiction designated as circuit courts, while for the Indian Territory only one court had been established at that time, and it was a court of general jurisdiction. In view of this the act declared that 'the United States court in the Indian Territory herein referred to shall have and exercise the powers of courts of probate under said laws,' and 'wherever in said laws of Arkansas the courts of record of said state are mentioned the said court in the Indian Territory shall be substituted therefor.'
Among the Arkansas laws enumerated in the act was chapter 155, containing sections numbered from 6490 to 6548. The section under which the will was probated declares:
Other sections (6509 and 6521) provide for an appeal to the circuit court from an order of the probate court establishing or rejecting a will, and for bringing in parties and giving a hearing de novo upon the appeal. The sections under which the suit was brought read as follows:
As the functions of the probate and circuit courts in Arkansas were united in a single court in the Indian Territory, it seems plain, as was held by the supreme court of Oklahoma in this case, that the sections (6509 and 6521) dealing with appeals from the probate to the circuit court were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Callicotte v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.
-
Marlin v. Lewallen, 40
...U. S. 544, 47 S. Ct. 706, 71 L. Ed. 1194; Adkins v. Arnold, 235 U. S. 417, 421, 35 S. Ct. 118, 59 L. Ed. 294; Gidney v. Chappel, 241 U. S. 99, 102, 36 S. Ct. 492, 60 L. Ed. 910. In 1900 the Commission succeeded in negotiating with representatives of the Creek tribe an agreement such as was ......
-
Eysenbach v. Naharkey
...given to said extending act of May 2, 1899, by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Gidney v. Chappel, 241 U.S. 99, 60 L. Ed. 910, 36 S. Ct. 492, in an opinion written by Mr. Justice Van Devanter, wherein it was by the said court stated, in discussing the said act (not thi......
-
Eysenbach v. Naharkey
... ... the United States, in the case of Gidney v. Chappel, ... 241 U.S. 99, 36 S.Ct. 492, 60 L.Ed. 911, in an opinion ... ...