Title: IOWA LAND & TRUST CO. v. INDIAN LAND & TRUST CO.
Citation: 116 P. 76 9, 1911 OK 269, 29 Okla. 308
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: July 11, 1911

IOWA LAND & TRUST CO. v. INDIAN LAND & TRUST CO. Annotate this Case IOWA LAND & TRUST CO. v. INDIAN LAND & TRUST CO. 1911 OK 269 116 P. 769 29 Okla. 308 Case Number: 977 Decided: 07/11/1911 Supreme Court of Oklahoma IOWA LAND & TRUST CO. v. INDIAN LAND & TRUST CO. et al. Syllabus ¶0 EJECTMENT--New Trial as of Right--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. 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 Edgar A. De Meules, for plaintiff in error West, Mellette & Jones and William B. Moore, for defendants in error WILLIAMS, J. ¶1 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 P. 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 P. 960; Pacific Mutual Ins. Co. v. Adams, 27 Okla. 496 , 112 P. 1026; Gwinnup et al. v. Griffins et al., 26 Okla. 866 , 113 P. 909; Freeman v. Eldridge, 26 Okla. 601 , 110 P. 1057; Armstrong, Byrd & Co. v. Phillips, 28 Okla. 808 , 115 P. 870 . ¶2 The judgment of the lower court is reversed and remanded, with instructions to proceed in accordance with this opinion. ¶3 All the Justices concur.