Case Name: In re, Delks Estate
Court: Court of Appeals of Indian Territory
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1899-06-08
Citations: 2 Indian Terr. 572
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re, Delks Estate.
Judges: Thomas, J., concurs.
Reporter: Indian Territory Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 572–582

Head Matter:
In re, Delks Estate.
Opinion delivered June 8, 1899.
1. Appeal — Record—Presumption.
In the absence of a complete record on appeal, the presumption is that the action of the trial court was correct.
2. Indian Citizens — Juridsiction of United States Court of Estate of.
Under the act of May 2, 1890, the United States Court in the Indian Territory has jurisdiction of an estate of a deceased Indian, when citizens of the United States are creditors or distributees of the estate.
3. Probate Court — Appeal.
Chapter 42 Mansf. Dig. allowing an appeal from the Probate to I the Circuit Court has never been put in force in the Indian j Territory and no such appeal is allowed.
Clayton, J., dissents.
Appeal from the United States Court for the Northern District.
Wm. M. Springer, Judge.
Motion to confirm appointment of L. A. Keys as ad-| minis fcrator of David M. Delk, deceased, and to approve his I bond, was granted over the protest of Lizzie Delk, or| Wilkinson. She appeals.
Affirmed.
On October 8, 1896, motion, was filed in the United! States district court at Vinita to confirm the appointment-! ment of L. A. Keys as administrator of the estate of David! M. Delk, deceased, which appointment has been made by! the clerk of the court in vacation, on, to wit, August 14,1 1896. On the 17th day of October, 1896, a protest was filed against' the confirmation of said Keys as administrator by Lizzie Delk, or Wilkinson, in which she alleges that she was married to said David M. Delk, deceased, on the 11th day of March 1878, according to the Cherokee laws; that'sheisa citizen of the Cherokee Nation by blood, and Delk, being a white man, became, by virtue of said marriage, a Cherokee citizen by adoption; that they had never been divorced, though not living together at the time of his death; that he left no children, and died intestate; that he died May 26, 1896; that she, as his wife and nearest heir, made application to the district judge of Cooweescoowee district, Cherokee Nation, for letters of administration on his estate, whicli. were granted, that on July 26, 1896, a petition was filed in the United States district court in Vinita, asking that Leander A. Keys, a Cherokee citizen, be appointed administrator of the estate of said Delk, which was granted by the clerk. She protests against the confirmation of Keys, on the following grounds, to wit: “That the deceased was a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, as are also said Leander A. Keys and protestant, and that this court has no jurisdiction of the parties or the suject-matter, but that said estate should be administered under the Cherokee laws;” that she will administer the estate if not interfered with; “that she denies each and every material allegation set up in the petition for the appointment of Leander A. Keys. ” She files certified copy of record of marriage and marriage license and her affidavit showing she and deceased lived together about one month after their marriage in 1878, when deceased sent her away, and refused to live1 with her any longer. She files certified copy of bond and letters of administration from the Cherokee court. On October 17, 1896, the motion to confirm the appointment of Leander A. Keys, approve his bond, and the protest of Lizzie Wilkinson, was heard by Judge Springer, and the appointment of Keys was confirmed, and his bond approved. On October 19, 1896, Keys, as administrator, was authorized to sell the personal property, except as choses in action, of the estate of Delk, over the protest of said Lizzie Wilkinson, by order of the court. On the same day motion and affidavit of appeal were filed by Lizzie Delk, or Wilkinson, that “appeal from the order of the court sitting in probate be granted to the United States court at Vinita, exercising like jurisdiction as the circuit court of the state of Arkansas, under Mansfield’s Digest.” On October 21, 1896, appellant filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled by the court, and she appealed to this court.
Davenport & Dugger, for appellant.
W II. Kornegay, for appellee.

Opinion:
Townsend, J.
The appellant files five specifications of error, which are as follows, to wit: "(1) The court erred in law in taking the administration of the said estate of David M. Delk, deceased, out of the Cherokee court, and placing said administration in the United States court, when the proof showed the deceased to be a Cherokee citizen and that said estate had been administered on by this defendant, now the appellant, in the Cherokee court, prior to the granting of the letters of administration to the said appellee in the United States court. (2) The court erred in law in holding that the United States court had jurisdiction to administer on the estate of Cherokee citizens when it was shown that any United States citizen was remotely interested. (8) The court erred in confirming the appointment of the administrator in the United States court when there was a Cherokee forum in which the said estate had been administered in. (4) The court erred in law in holding that the act of congress of May 2, 1890, provided for the administration of Cherokee decedents in the United States court, when a United States Citizen was a creditor of the deceased. 26 Stat. 81. (5) The court erred in denying the defendant an appeal to the United States court at Vihita, exercising like jurisdiction as the circuit court of the state of Arkansas, under Mansfield's Digest, after the defendant had filed her motion for appeal as provided by law. "
The record brought here by the bill of exceptions is imperfect. In the protest filed by appellant she says ' 'that she denies each and every material allegation set up in the petition for the appointment of Leander A. Keys, " but the petition of Keys is not brought here by the bill of exceptions; neither is there any evidence brought here that may have been submitted; and no statement is made that evidence was submitted; no findings of fact or conclusions of law are brought here, except the order of the court confirming the appointment of Keys. In the absence of a complete record, the presumption is that the action of the court was correct. Under the act of congress approved May 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 81), it is provided; "Nothing in this act shall be so construed as to deprive any of the courts of the civilized nations of exclusive jurisdiction over all cases arising wherein members of said nations, whether by treaty, blood or adoption, are the sole parties." Appellant, in argument, seems to think that this statute in prohibitory of jurisdiction to the United States court, but does this statute exclude jurisdiction in matters of probate where United States citizens are creditors or dis-tributees, as shown by the petition for appointment of administrator? We think not. It is insisted by appellee that if a complete record had been brought up it would show exactly this state of facts. The court may have been satisfied that the appelle was not qualified to act as administrator under the laws in force, but by reason of the incomplete record this court cannot say how that is.
So far as the error alleged in the fifth specification is concerned, it is sufficient to say that chapter 42, under which such appeals are allowed, has never been put in force in the Indian Territory. It is therefore ordered that the appeal be dismissed and the judgment of the court below be confirmed.
Thomas, J., concurs.