allowance claim in Oklahoma

1967The allowance of the privilege would be a mockery of justice, if either party is to be affected injuriously by it’.” The State relies upon Raffel v. United States, 271 U.S. 494 , 46 S.Ct. 566 , 70 L.Ed. 1054 .

1967The allowance of the privilege would be a mockery of justice, if either party is to be affected injuriously by it’.” The State relies upon Raffel v. United States, 271 U.S. 494 , 46 S.Ct. 566 , 70 L.Ed. 1054 .

1959In holding for the defendants, the trial court found that “the claim of the Kaw Indians was a claim for payment of the rea sonable value of certain lands claimed by the Kaw Indians and appropriated by the Government of the United States; that the interest of the deceased, Alice Pappan Burnett, was acquired by her through inheritance from a deceased son who died intestate in 1912, and from the estate of her deceased husband, Stephen Pappan, who died intestate in 1913; that Alice Pappan Burnett was a white woman and not of Indian Blood; * * * that the allowance of a claim of the Kaw Indian Tribe

1959In holding for the defendants, the trial court found that “the claim of the Kaw Indians was a claim for payment of the rea sonable value of certain lands claimed by the Kaw Indians and appropriated by the Government of the United States; that the interest of the deceased, Alice Pappan Burnett, was acquired by her through inheritance from a deceased son who died intestate in 1912, and from the estate of her deceased husband, Stephen Pappan, who died intestate in 1913; that Alice Pappan Burnett was a white woman and not of Indian Blood; * * * that the allowance of a claim of the Kaw Indian Tribe

1927Both plaintiff and defendants cite the case of Ward et al. v. Board of Co. Com’rs, 114 Okla. 246 , 246 Pac. 376 , in support of their contentions.

1927Both plaintiff and defendants cite the case of Ward et al. v. Board of Co. Com’rs, 114 Okla. 246 , 246 Pac. 376 , in support of their contentions.

1922It has no reference to the pitizens of a county who are no-t interested in the allowance of the claim. * * *” In Hudson et al. v. Jefferson County Court, 28 Ark. 359 , the court said: “In allowing or disallowing a demand against the county, an appeal lies only by the party interested, and no.t by citizens who are not interested.” In Morath v. Gorham et al.

1922(Wash.) 40 Pac. 129 , the court said: “Under Laws 1893, p. 292, providing that any person may appeal from a depision of the county commissioners, and that the ‘party appealing’ shall serve notice, etc., persons interested in a claim, who feel aggrieved ■by the decision of the commissioners only can appeal, and not taxpayers generally.” In Lawry v. Board of Com’rs of Snohomish Co. et al.

1921Plaintiff in error, however, contends that the subsequent administrator would have a right to review the acts of the former administrator and disallow the claim, and relies upon the ease of Husted v. Hoyt, 12 Conn. 160 .

1913Burgess, if sued again for the same matter, during the pendency of the appeal, might plead the former judgment in bar” (citing Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Biscoe v. Butts, 5 Ark. 305 ; Beers v. Wuerpul, 24 Ark. 272 .) In the case of Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 , Wiley, who had presented a claim to the administrator of an estate, by whom the same was disallowed, recovered a judgment before 'the probate court for the allowance of his claim.

1913Burgess, if sued again for the same matter, during the pendency of the appeal, might plead the former judgment in bar” (citing Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Biscoe v. Butts, 5 Ark. 305 ; Beers v. Wuerpul, 24 Ark. 272 .) In the case of Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 , Wiley, who had presented a claim to the administrator of an estate, by whom the same was disallowed, recovered a judgment before 'the probate court for the allowance of his claim.

1913Burgess, if sued again for the same matter, during the pendency of the appeal, might plead the former judgment in bar” (citing Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Biscoe v. Butts, 5 Ark. 305 ; Beers v. Wuerpul, 24 Ark. 272 .) In the case of Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 , Wiley, who had presented a claim to the administrator of an estate, by whom the same was disallowed, recovered a judgment before 'the probate court for the allowance of his claim.

1913Burgess, if sued again for the same matter, during the pendency of the appeal, might plead the former judgment in bar” (citing Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Biscoe v. Butts, 5 Ark. 305 ; Beers v. Wuerpul, 24 Ark. 272 .) In the case of Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 , Wiley, who had presented a claim to the administrator of an estate, by whom the same was disallowed, recovered a judgment before 'the probate court for the allowance of his claim.