St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-05-16
Judges Caldwell, Sanborn and
Thayer Hand Down Ten
Decisions. q
=.
Action Of the Lower Courts Is
Sustained Except in
Three Cases.
Interesting Law Points De-
cided in a Case From tho
Greek Nation.
An Inviolable Right Of the
Defendant in a Case De-
fined by Sanbopn.

ITO u OldlCS CllCutI COulb VI nD-
peals was in session yesterday. with
Judges Henry G. Caldwsll, Walter b..
Sanborn and Amos M. Thayer on the
bench. Ten decisions were handed
down.
j. P. Davidson, plaintiff in error. VS..
Edward Gibson. Error to the United
States circuit in the Indian territory.
Reversed and remanded with direction
fol- new trial. Opinion by Judge Cald-
well.
This case involves interesting features
as to the descent of property among the
Creek Indians. Judge Caldwell re-
views the customs and traditions of this
tribe in an entertaining way in his de-
cision. He finds Julia Gibson was born
a slave in the Creek nation in the In
dian territory. Her master sold her to
a slave owner in Missouri, who took
her to tina. state and kept her until 1854.
when her mother purchased her free
dom and took her back to the Creek ma
ton. While slave in Missouri she
married Edward Gibson, who was also
a slave. After being freed, as result
of the civil war. Gibson went to the
Creek nation in 1885, and he and Julia
lived as husband and wife until her
death. April 20. 1891, Julia acquired
The Rights of Citizen
of the Creek nation under treaty made
with the tribe by the act of congress.
Before, EdwardGibson went to the Greek
nation julia owned forty acres of land
and some personal property. She left
four children, TWO of whom were not
the children of Edward Gibson. After
her death, Gibson claimed the personal
property and took possession of the
land. j. z. Davidson. one of JuliaS
children, was appointed administrator
of her estate. and brought an action in
replevin to recover the personal prop
erty. The case was tried in the United
States court of Indian Territory and a
verdict rendered in favor of Edward
Gibson. under instruction of the court.
Judge Caldwell, in his opinion, finds
that under the law of Indian Territory
there is no law allowing married women
to hold separate property. The Creek
nation has been recognized by the
United States as domestic depend
ent nation and has had the
light of local self-government
from early times. The English
common law is not in force in any state
not still led by English colonists, and is
not in force in the Creek nation, butt it
is held that the customs and rules jim
force in the Creek nation are applica-
BILE, that is, that the property shall go
to the husband and children. The judg-
ment of the United States court Of IN
dian Territory is reversed, and the case
remandad for new trial. Decision in
accordance with the customs of the
Creek nation.
James I. Hair Company, appellant.
VS.. Joseph Huckins. Appeal from the
United States circuit court, Eastern
district of Arkansas. Opinion by Judge
Caldwell, affirming court below.
An EnViola bic Right.
The Southern Express Company.
plaintiff in error. VS.. Charles S. Todd
ct al. In error to the circuit court for
the Eastern district of Arkansas.
The right of defendant to insist that
no suit shall be maintained against him
IN the circuit courts of the United
States in other districts than that of
which he is an Inhabitant or that in
which the plaintiff or defendant resides
under the provisions of the original act
of congress of March 3, 1887, and the
act of Aug. Is. 1888, correcting it ga
Statutes 552. chapter 373; rs Statutes
434, chapter 1860, is personal privilege
or exemption.
1t is inviolaDle, and will defeat the &C
ton if seasonably insisted upon by de-
murrer or plea before general appear
ance in, or answer to the merits Of, the
action. 1t is waived by~a general ap-
pearance, a general demurrer, or an
answer before making the objection,
and it is thereafter too late to insist
upon it. Letters between third parties
containing statements that the parties
to an action have made admissions
against their interest material to the
issue on trial are hearsay and inadmis-
slble as evidence. Opinion by Judge
Sanborn affirming decision of court be-
low.
It. }. O'Connell, plaintiff in error. VS..
Simon Reed ct al. In error to the cir
cult court of the United States for the
district of Kansas.
The federal courts will conform their
practice. pleadings and forms and
modes of proceeding in civil causes in
the circuit and district courts. as near
as may be, to those adopted tor the
state courts by the statutes of the states
in which they are held, and the practice
of the courts of those states, but it is
their right and duty to reject any SUBJ
ordinate provision of the state statutes
and any practice of the state courts
which, in their Judgment, will "un-
wisely incumber the administration of
the law, or tend to defeat the ends of
Justice, in their trib unals.''
A statute of Kansas authorized the
maintenance of an action upon a money
demand not due arising on contract
when the defendant is guilty of fraud
in the disposition or intended DISPOSE
ton of his property.
Under the statutes of that state as
construed by its supreme court, sim
gle action may be commenced for con-
tract debt due and one not due, but
upon the interposition of a demurrer to
the petition on the ground that two
causes of action are improperly joined,
the claim for the debt due and that for
the debt not due will be separated. and
a separate action will be docketed for
each, when they will proceed to trial
without further service of process.
Inasmuch as such a division of the
causes of action into separate actions
tends to multiply costs. and to reduce
the amount in dispute in one or both Of
the actions below the amount required
to give jurisdiction to the circuit court.
such a practice would "unWiSeiy in
cumber the administration of the law.
and tend to defeat the ends of justice,''
and the federal courts ought not to fol-
low it. Opinion by Judge Sanborn
affirming court below.
Personal Injury Law.
Chicago, st. Paul, Minneapolis &
Omaha Railway Company, plaintiff in
error, VS.. Fred P. Elliott. In error to
the circuit court of the United States
for the district of Minnesota.
An injury. which cannot be reason
ably anticipated as a natural or proba-
bic consequence of an act of negligence
under the surrounding circumstances of
the case is not ctionable, and evidence
of such an act is not admissible in an
action on account of such an injury.
Evidence that conductor on freight
train, some time before he arrived at
station. stated to drover in charge of
stock on the train, who knew the con-
ductOr was running the train on orders
from superior officers, and that freight
trains usually changed cabooses, engines
and crews at that station, that the cabOOse
would not be changed there and that the