Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1899-11-16

VS.. 9Th school district, q Conn
499, it was held that resident anC
tax payer of the district had suffi,
cient interest 10 enable him tC
maintain an injunction to prevent
the use of the school house for re.
ligious services. The court very
pertinently said, that the value Of
the right of the district and its in.
habitants to the exclusive use OF
the school houses for school pur-
poses was not to be measured by
the mere pecuniary injury result
ing from an infringement of the
right. To the same effect is the
decision of the supreme court OF
Kansas in Spencer VS.. school dis
trict No. 6, 10 Kansas 269, in which
the opinion was delivered by Judge
Brewer. Indeed, under the mo-
dern decisions, the general rule is
that a resident tax payer Of any
municipality has sufficient inter-
est and has a right to maintain a
bill to prevent the unlawful dispo-
sition OF the money or property Of
his town or city, to forbid the IL
legal creation of debt or liability
of his municipality, and to restrain
the diversion OF ofmoney or property
in his town or city from any public
use, in which he shares, to which
it has been dedicated. Compton
VS.. Zabriskie, 101 U. S. COL. 500;
Mayor and City Council of Balti-
more VS.. Gill, 81 Nd. 375, 1896;
Spencer VS.. School District, 10
Kan. 259; Schofeld VS.. Sth School
District, q Conn. 499; Christopher
VS.. Mayor of New York, 13 Barb.
667, 571; Stuyvesant VS.. Pearsall,
Is Barb. pa; DeBaun ct al. We.
Mayor of New Rork, 16 Barb. 392;
Sharpless VS.. Mayor of Philsdel-
delphia, q Pa. St. 147 15S; Moers
vs.. City of Reading, 81 Pa. St.
1SS. New London VS.. Brainard ct
al, % Conn. 552; Merrill VS.. Plain
field, 10 n. n. 125.
The suggestion is made in the
brief Of the appellant that the only
citizen of the United States who
could lawfully reside in the Cher
okee nation were scheol Ieacners,
army officers and licensed traders,
and that consequently the appel
lee, Tarrant, could not have been
a lawful resident and taxpayer or
Downingville. But there is no
presumption that Tarrant was not
a school teacher, or an army off,
Ger, or a trader, and the demurrer
admits that be was a resident and
a taxpayer of the town. This was
an admission that he was a lawful
resident and the payer of a legal
tax, and the suggestion in this re-
gard is unworthy of consideration.
The second proposition of coun-
sci for the appellant is, that the
complaint states no cause for ac-
ton because the Cherokee nation
had the right to revoke in 1896 the
which it made in 1871 |
and to sell the land dedicated to
public parks free from the trust
with which it was impressed. The
designation of this land as parks
or commons on the plat ofthe town
of DowniDgvIlle, which was ac-
cepted and approved by the nation
in 1871, was in legal effect q grant
of the land for the exclusive use of
the public for park purposes and a
warranty on the part of the nation
which owned it, that it would never
claim or use it for any other pur-
pose. The purchase of lots in ac-
cordance with this plat by the in
habitants and taxpayers of Down
and their imposition upon
themselves, and their expenditure
Of taxes to care for and improve
the parks was an acceptance of
this grant and covenant. Bell VS..
Atlantic and Pacific Ry. Co., 63
Fed. Az, 419, II C. C. A. 271, 272;
27 U. S. App. 3O5, 3OS; Beatty VS..
Kru!z, 2 Peters 565, 5SS; City of
Jacksonville v. Jacksonville R. r.
Co., 81 Ill. $40, 542; LIE Clerq v.
Trustees of Gallpolis, 7 Ohio 21S,
221: Village of Princeville v. Aut-
IN, II Ill. 325 $50; Brown v. Man.
hing, Ohio sos. After the May
" and town council of the town of
Oowningville was incorporated by
be Cherokee nation, and after it
ook possession and control of
hese parks, this grant and accep-
ance became three-fold contract.
t was an agreement between the
Iation and the public-the people {
Or whose use the title of the park :
7as held-an agreement between {
be mayor and the town council of ,