Case Name: ROE v. ANCO OIL CO. et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1923-09-25
Citations: 96 Okla. 87
Docket Number: No. 12729
Parties: ROE v. ANCO OIL CO. et al.
Judges: JOHNSON, C. J., and NICHOLSON, COCHRAN, and MASON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 87–87

Head Matter:
ROE v. ANCO OIL CO. et al.
No. 12729
Opinion Filed Sept. 25, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1923.
(Syllabus.)
Indians — Descent of Allotments — Cases Controlling.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed upon the authority of In re Estate of Robert Pigeon, 81 Okla. 180, 198 Pae. 309. and other cases herein cited.
Error from District Court, Muskogee County: Guy F. Nelson, Judge.
Action by Mattie Roe, a minor, by her guardian and next friend, against the Anco Oil Company, a corporation et al., to quiet title. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Neff & Neff, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. S. Ramsey, J. C. Denton, Edgar A. DeMeules, Malcolm E. Rosser, and Villard Martin, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
KENNAMER, J.
This case involves the allotment of Elijah Roe, a freedman citi zen of the Creek Nation, who died in July, 1911, intestate, unmarried, and without issue, leaving his father, Marshal] Roe, enrolled as a Seminole freedman, brothers and sisters enrolled as Creek freedmen, and a niece, a child of a sister of the deceased. The defendants in the case claimed an interest in the land under conveyances from the father of the deceased allottee. It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the father did not inherit the land allotted by the deceased allottee. Under the rule announced by this court in the following-cases: In re Estate of Robert Pigeon, 81 Okla. 180, 198 Pac. 309; Teague v. Smith, 85 Okla. 12, 204 Pac. 439; Harrison v. Harrison, 87 Okla. 91, 209 Pac. 737: Murray v. Goad, 88 Okla. 300, 213 Pac. 73: Jackson v. McKay, 89 Okla. 119, 213 Pac. 876, the father of Elijah Roe inherited the allotment.
This case is also controlled by the rule announced in case No. 11851, Edmond McKay v. Mattie Roe, a minor, in which an opinion has this day been filed, 96 Okla. 87, 219 Pac. 921.
For the reasons stated the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and NICHOLSON, COCHRAN, and MASON, JJ., concur.