Bates v. Printup
William H. Bates v. Daniel Printup
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hickey, J.
The defendants and appellants are Tuscarora Indians. Judgment was rendered against them in the court below in an action sounding in tort. From that judgment they have appealed to this' court, and the only question presented for consideration is, whether or not the courts of this State have jurisdiction in such actions over Tuscarora Indians. This question must be answered in the affirmative, for it appears that the courts have already so decided. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Hill, 60 Hun, 347 ; Crouse v. N. Y., Penn. & Ohio R. R. Co., 49 id. 576; Jemmison v. Kennedy, 55 id. 47.
It has been suggested by counsel that this court write at length upon this question. We see no occasion for so doing. So far as this court is concerned, the question is not an open one, as the decisions referred to must control.
The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.