Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1897-01-28
IMPORTANT OPINION.
Leases Of Buildings Valid In the In.
dian TERRITORY.


dian Territory.
I
A case was decided recently IL
tie court Of appeals for the lndiar
Territory sitting at South McAles
ter of more importance to the peo
pie Of the whole territory than any
case that has been decided sine,
the court was organized. II was I
suit involving the right Of non.cit
izens to own buildings and leas,
them in the Indian Territory. The
particular case decided was the
case of Grady Trading Co. VS. Mar
tin Curran and Lace Lamb. Tn,
facts are that Martin Curran, when
in partnership with G. w. Walker,
under the firm name of Walker
Trading Co, leased a part of the
Grady Trading Co. building at
South McAlester as n warehouse in
which to store a portion OF his
goods, agreeing to pay therefor five
dollars per month, and to yield
possession at any time upon thirty
days notice. After that his store
building near the NJ, X. & T.track
was burned. He then opened up
his store in the Grady Trading Co.
building and since then has moved
his family into it also. He paid
the rent on the building for few
months and then concluded he
could not be made to pay rent and
could not be made to give up pos
session and when notified TO vacate
refused to do so. When suit was
brought by the Grady Trading Co.
to recover the possession of the
property, he set up the defense
that the Grady Trading Co, being
non. citizens, could not lawfully
own the property or lease it, on
the ground that it was against the
laws Of the Choclaw nation aud
against public policy, etc. The
case was tried before Judge Lewis
at the last spring term Of court, who
overruled the defense Of Mr.. Cur.
ran and ordered him to yield pos
session of the property. Mr.. Cur
ran then appealed the case to the
court Of appeals of the territory,
and it was argued before that
court, Judge T. n. Foster ap-
gearing for Curran & Lamb, and
j. w. McLoud for the Grady Trad
ing Co. After a full argument OF
the case the court, from the bench,
affirmed the decision Of Judge
Lewis. Chief Justice Springer,
said to sustain such a defense was
nothing but legalized larceny and
would destroy all property rights
in the territory. He said the
question was of such importance
that the views of the court ought
TO be announced at the earliest
possible moment.
He also said he wanted the peo-
ple Of this territory to understand
and to know the views of the court
on the subject; that the laws of the
Choctaw nation have no appllca.
tion to suits between non citizens,
and that the Choctaw nation is
powerless TO make any laws for
the government and control OF cit.
zens of the United States; that non
citizens have possessory rights to
the lands in this country, have a
right to own buildings and lease
them, aud that such contracts are
valid aud lawful, and will be up
held by the courts here the same
a. in the states. Chief Justice
Springer also said that he wanted
the United States citizens in the
territory to understand that their
rights in property in the territory
would be protected. As the case
was tried before Judge Lewis be-
low, he did not sit. Judge XII
gore concurred with Chief Justice
Springer in all respects, aud ex-
pressed his views on the subject
quite as vigorously as the chief
justice. This decision, being by
the court of appeals, in the Indian
Territory, will be a precedent on
the subject, and will do much to
establish confidence, and encourage
the erection OF buildings in all the
towns Of the territory. A formal
opinion by Chief Justice Springer
will be filed later
Mr.. Curran threatened to appeal
this case. II is important to all
property owners Of the territory
that this decision should stand
iinal, because, as before stated, il
is a precedent on the subject, and
il reversed, would have the same
force aud effect in the territory and
be as binding upon all of the courts
Of the territory and the people OF
territory as though passed by an
act Of congress.