Case ID: okla_148/html/0260-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RILEY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TALMASCY et al. v. THOMAS et al.
    No. 19935.
    Opinion Filed April 28, 1931.
    J. B. Campbell, Etha Lawrence, and J. Ralph Kniglit, for plaintiffs in error.
    Pryor & Stokes, R. J. Roberts, A. M. Fowler, R. J. Bollman, H. E. P. Stanford, R. M. Cavanaugh, A. D. Cochran, E. T. Noble, Chas. E. Bush, John Y. Murry, Arrington & Evans, and Frank P. Douglass, for defendants in error.
   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.