Case Name: IOWA LAND & TRUST CO. v. INDIAN LAND & TRUST CO. et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1911-07-11
Citations: 29 Okla. 308
Docket Number: No. 977
Parties: IOWA LAND & TRUST CO. v. INDIAN LAND & TRUST CO. et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
IOWA LAND & TRUST CO. v. INDIAN LAND & TRUST CO. et al.
No. 977.
Opinion Filed July 11, 1911.
(116 Pac. 769.)
EJECTMENT — New Trial as of Eight — Effect of Statehood. Under the laws in force in the Indian Territory at the time of the erection of the state, the losing party in an ejectment suit was not entitled as a matter of right to a second trial.
(a) As to ejectment actions pending in the United States courts in the Indian Territory at the time of the admission of the state, and afterwards transferred to and finally determined in a state district court, the losing party as a matter of right was not entitled to a second trial.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from District Court, Muskogee County; J. H. King, Judge.
Action between the Iowa Land & Trust Company and the Indian Land & Trust Company and others. From the judgment, the Iowa Land & Trust Company brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
C. L. Thomas and Edgcw A. De Meules, for plaintiff in error.
West, Mellette & Jones and William B. Moore, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
WILLIAMS, J.
The question essential to be determined in this case is as to whether, in ejectment actions pending in the United States courts in the Indian Territory at the time of the erection of the state and afterwards transferred and tried in a state district court, the losing party as a matter of right is entitled to a second- trial. In Runyan v. Fisher, 28 Okla. 450, 114 Pac. 717, it was held by this court that:
"Under the 'laws in force in the Indian Territory at the time of the erection of the state, the losing party in an ejectment suit was not entitled as a matter of right to a second trial, (a) As to pending ejectment actions, afterwards finally determined in the state district courts, the losing party as a matter of right was not entitled to a second trial."
See, also, Blanchard & Co. v. Ezell, 25 Okla. 434, 106 Pac. 960; Pacific Mutual Ins. Co. v. Adams, 27 Okla. 496, 112 Pac. 1026; Gwinnup et al. v. Griffin et al., 26 Okla. 866, 113 Pac. 909; Freeman v. Eldridge, 26 Okla. 601, 110 Pac. 1057; Armstrong, Byrd & Co. v. Phillips, 28 Okla. 808, 115 Pac. 870.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed and remanded, with instructions to proceed in accordance with this opinion.
All the Justices concur.