Case Name: The Onondaga Nation et al., Appellants, v. John Boyd Thacher, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-12-20
Citations: 169 N.Y. 584
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Onondaga Nation et al., Appellants, v. John Boyd Thacher, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 169
Pages: 584–584

Head Matter:
The Onondaga Nation et al., Appellants, v. John Boyd Thacher, Respondent.
Onondaga Nation v. Timelier, 53 App. Div. 561, affirmed.
(Argued December 12, 1901;
decided December 20, 1901.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered August 7, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term.
Edward Wi/nslow Paige {As-gue-sent-waK) for appellants.
John A. Pelehanty for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We think the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, upon the ground that neither the Onondaga Nation^ nor the individual Indians named as plaintiffs, had legal capacity to bring and maintain the action. (Strong v. Waterman, 11 Paige, 607; Seneca Nation v. Christie, 126 N. Y. 122; Johnson v. Long Island R. R. Co., 162 ib. 462.)
As to the University of the State of New York, one of the plaintiffs, the finding of fact by the trial judge " that the University of the State of New York never purchased any or either of the wampum belts mentioned and described in the' complaint, and that said University of the State of New York never was selected or 6 raised up ' to the position or office of ' wampum-keeper,' and no official proceedings were ever begun on the part of any of the tribes of Indians which formerly composed said Iroquois Confederacy for the purpose 'of conferring any such position or office upon said University of the State of New York, assuming that there is or was, at the time of. said alleged proceedings, any such official position," is supported by evidence, and the judgment having been affirmed at the 4-ppellate Division, it is, therefore, conclusive upon us.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Gbay, O'Bbien, Haight, Cullen and Webneb, JJ., concur ;' Pabkbb, Ch. J., absent; Landon, j., not voting.
Judgment affirmed.