Case Name: THE SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Respondent, v. GEORGE HAMMOND, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-04
Citations: 11 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 417
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Respondent, v. GEORGE HAMMOND, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 11
Pages: 417–417

Head Matter:
THE SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Respondent, v. GEORGE HAMMOND, Appellant.
Ihdiam reservation—cutting and removing timber from—when illegal.
An appeal from the decision of the Special Term in Cattaraugus county, sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendant’s second answer.
The complaint alleged as a cause of action, the unlawful purchase, talcing and carrying from the Cattaraugus Reservation, of a quantity of cord wood, contrary to the act of November 15, 1847, for the protection, etc., of the Seneca Indians; and demanded judgment for double the value of the property, etc.
The defendant’s second answer alleged: That in June, 1873, certain Indians, members of the Seneca Nation and Tribe, were residing upon said reservation, and in the occupation and possession of certain lands thereon, which they had inclosed by good substantial fences, and which. lands they had respectively occupied and improved and inclosed for many years. That said Indians, each for his own use and benefit, sold and transferred to defendant trees and timber, then being and growing upon their lands, so occupied and fenced, for which defendant paid to each Indian the full value in money; and afterward cut and carried away therefrom, said cord wood, etc.
To this answer the -plaintiff demurred, on the ground that it did not state facts constituting a defense.
The General Term was of opinion that under the laws of the State relative to this reservation (chap. 365 of 1847, § 20; chap. 294 of 1859; chap. 455 of 1873), the acts of the defendant, in cutting and removing the timber from the reservation, were illegal, and affirmed the order.
J. M. Humphrey, for the appellant.
James G. Johnson, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Gilbert, J.
Order affirmed.