Case Name: BATES v. PRINTUP et al.
Court: Niagara County Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-03
Citations: 64 N.Y.S. 561
Docket Number: 
Parties: BATES v. PRINTUP et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 64
Pages: 561–561

Head Matter:
(31 Misc. Rep. 17.)
BATES v. PRINTUP et al.
(Niagara County Court.
March, 1900.)
Indians—J urisdiction.
The courts of New York have jurisdiction over Tuscarora Indians in actions sounding in tort
Appeal from justice court.
Action for conversion by William H. Bates against Daniel Printup and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, rendered by a justice of the peace, defendants appealed to the county court.
Affirmed.
Brong & Jeffery, for appellants.
W. E. Lockner, for respondent.

Opinion:
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. Manufacturing Co. v. Hill, 60 Hun, 347, 15 N. Y. Supp. 27; Crouse v. Railroad Co., 49 Hun, 576, 2 N. Y. Supp. 453; Jemmison v. Kennedy, 55 Hun, 47, 7 N. Y. Supp. 296. 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.