Search
Search Results
- Identifier:
- CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0001
- Contributing Institution:
- Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
- Collection:
- Claude Weaver Collection
- Title:
- The Brick Kiln Decision: Judge C.B. Kilgore
- Date:
- 1895-01-01
- Creator:
- unknown
- Policy Area:
- Native Americans
- Topic:
- Flood control, Indians of North America--Oklahoma
- Congress:
- 56th (1899-1901), 54th (1895-1897), 55th (1897-1899), 57th (1901-1903)
- Identifier:
- CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0002
- Contributing Institution:
- Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
- Collection:
- Claude Weaver Collection
- Title:
- The Famous Brick Kiln Decision of Judge C.B. Kilgore
- Date:
- 1895-01-01
- Creator:
- unknown
- Policy Area:
- Native Americans
- Names:
- Chickasaw Nation
- Topic:
- Indians of North America--Claims, Indians of North America--Oklahoma
- Congress:
- 55th (1897-1899), 57th (1901-1903), 56th (1899-1901), 54th (1895-1897)
- Identifier:
- CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0005
- Contributing Institution:
- Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
- Collection:
- Claude Weaver Collection
- Title:
- Dismissal of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory
- Date:
- 1895-01-01
- Creator:
- unknown
- Policy Area:
- Native Americans
- Names:
- Chickasaw Nation
- Topic:
- Indians of North America--Claims, Business--United States, Indians of North America--Oklahoma
- Congress:
- 57th (1901-1903), 55th (1897-1899), 54th (1895-1897), 56th (1899-1901)
- Identifier:
- CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0003
- Contributing Institution:
- Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
- Collection:
- Claude Weaver Collection
- Title:
- THE LEGAL BATTLE: PAUL VS. MARTIN IN THE INDIAN COURT
- Date:
- 1895-01-01
- Creator:
- unknown
- Policy Area:
- Native Americans
- Topic:
- Indians of North America--Oklahoma, Flood control
- Congress:
- 54th (1895-1897), 55th (1897-1899), 57th (1901-1903), 56th (1899-1901)
- Identifier:
- CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0006
- Contributing Institution:
- Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
- Collection:
- Claude Weaver Collection
- Title:
- Brief for Appellee in Wilcoxson v. Hybarger in the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory.
- Date:
- 1895-01-01
- Creator:
- unknown
- Topic:
- Banks and banking--United States, Indians of North America--Oklahoma, Flood control
- Congress:
- 55th (1897-1899), 54th (1895-1897), 56th (1899-1901), 57th (1901-1903)
- Identifier:
- CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0007
- Contributing Institution:
- Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
- Collection:
- Claude Weaver Collection
- Title:
- Title: Dispute Over Administration of W.I. Byars Estate
- Date:
- 1895-01-01
- Creator:
- unknown
- Policy Area:
- Native Americans
- Names:
- Chickasaw Nation
- Topic:
- Foreign relations, Indians of North America--Oklahoma
- Congress:
- 57th (1901-1903), 55th (1897-1899), 54th (1895-1897), 56th (1899-1901)
- Identifier:
- CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0008
- Contributing Institution:
- Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
- Collection:
- Claude Weaver Collection
- Title:
- Jurisdictional Questions in United States Court for Indian Territory
- Date:
- 1895-01-01
- Creator:
- unknown
- Policy Area:
- Native Americans
- Names:
- Cherokee Nation, Kickapoo Nation, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
- Topic:
- Indians of North America--Oklahoma, Indians of North America--Claims
- Congress:
- 54th (1895-1897), 55th (1897-1899), 57th (1901-1903), 56th (1899-1901)
- Identifier:
- CAC_CC_055_2_2_4_0001
- Contributing Institution:
- Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
- Collection:
- Claude Weaver Collection
- Title:
- Eligibility of Five Civilized Tribes Members for Federal Congress Representation
- Date:
- 1907-01-01
- Creator:
- unknown
- Topic:
- Foreign relations, Business--United States, Ambassadors--United States
- Congress:
- 60th (1907-1909), 61st (1909-1911)
![["The document discusses the famous Brick Kiln Decision of Judge C.B. Kilgore, who was known for his arbitrary and prejudiced rulings. The case involved a dispute between Robinson and Fields and Brown over profits from a brick-making venture. Despite initial favoritism towards Robinson and Fields, Judge Kilgore ultimately ruled in favor of Brown, believing him to be an honest and hardworking man. The decision left Robinson and Fields disappointed and highlighted Judge Kilgore's unconventional approach to justice."]](https://jones-2.s3.amazonaws.com/Claude%20Weaver%20Collection,%201861-1953/Legal%20Career-CAC_CC_055_2_0000_0000_0000/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0000-Indian%20Territory,%201895-1902/Thumbnails/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0001_thumbnail.jpg "The Brick Kiln Decision: Judge C.B. Kilgore")
![["The document discusses the famous brick kiln decision made by Judge C.B. Kilgore in the United States Court for the southern district of the Indian Territory. The case involved a dispute between a brick maker named Brown and a firm of merchants named Robinson and Fields. Judge Kilgore ruled in favor of both parties, finding the merchants had a valid claim for goods and services provided, and also ruling in favor of Brown for the amount of bricks he claimed to have made. Kilgore also criticized the merchants for taking the law into their own hands and awarded additional bricks to Brown as compensation for their trespass. The case was eventually settled out of court."]](https://jones-2.s3.amazonaws.com/Claude%20Weaver%20Collection,%201861-1953/Legal%20Career-CAC_CC_055_2_0000_0000_0000/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0000-Indian%20Territory,%201895-1902/Thumbnails/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0002_thumbnail.jpg "The Famous Brick Kiln Decision of Judge C.B. Kilgore")
![["This text is a brief for the appellee in a replevin case involving personal property. The case was tried in the Mayor's Court of Pauls Valley, Indian Territory, and the appellant, Wettermark, sought to appeal to the United States Court but failed to do so within the required time and with the necessary documentation. The Court dismissed the appeal due to procedural errors. The appellee argues that the privilege of appeal is not an inherent right and that the appellant had already had their day in court."]](https://jones-2.s3.amazonaws.com/Claude%20Weaver%20Collection,%201861-1953/Legal%20Career-CAC_CC_055_2_0000_0000_0000/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0000-Indian%20Territory,%201895-1902/Thumbnails/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0005_thumbnail.jpg "Dismissal of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory")
![["The document discusses the author's move to Pauls Valley in the Indian Territory to practice law, where he becomes involved in a legal dispute between Tom Martin and the descendants of Sam Paul over a valuable piece of land. The land was originally obtained by Martin from Sam Paul, a prominent figure in the area who was murdered by his son and cousin. The case is brought to the Indian Court in Tishomingo, the capital of the Chickasaw Nation, where Martin must defend his possession of the land."]](https://jones-2.s3.amazonaws.com/Claude%20Weaver%20Collection,%201861-1953/Legal%20Career-CAC_CC_055_2_0000_0000_0000/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0000-Indian%20Territory,%201895-1902/Thumbnails/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0003_thumbnail.jpg "THE LEGAL BATTLE: PAUL VS. MARTIN IN THE INDIAN COURT")
![["This is a brief for the appellee in a case of forcible detainer between G. L. Wilcoxson and J. C. Hybarger in the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory. The appellee argues that the action of forcible detainer was properly brought due to the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the court's ruling in sustaining the plaintiff's demurrer, and the defendant's late tender of payment. The brief provides evidence of the landlord-tenant relationship and argues that the defendant's possession was derived from the plaintiff, supporting the plaintiff's claim to the premises."]](https://jones-2.s3.amazonaws.com/Claude%20Weaver%20Collection,%201861-1953/Legal%20Career-CAC_CC_055_2_0000_0000_0000/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0000-Indian%20Territory,%201895-1902/Thumbnails/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0006_thumbnail.jpg "Brief for Appellee in Wilcoxson v. Hybarger in the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory.")
![["This text is a legal brief presenting arguments against the removal of the administrator of the estate of W. Byars. The brief challenges statements made by the opposing counsel, Mr. Ledbetter, and argues that there is no evidence to support his claims. It questions the motives behind the accusations and argues that the administrator acted within the law in handling the estate. The brief concludes by stating that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the administrator."]](https://jones-2.s3.amazonaws.com/Claude%20Weaver%20Collection,%201861-1953/Legal%20Career-CAC_CC_055_2_0000_0000_0000/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0000-Indian%20Territory,%201895-1902/Thumbnails/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0007_thumbnail.jpg "Title: Dispute Over Administration of W.I. Byars Estate")
![["This brief argues that the United States Court for the Indian Territory does not have jurisdiction over a case involving inter-married citizens and citizens by blood. The defendants claim that the original act of 1889 intended for Indian courts to have exclusive jurisdiction over such cases. The defendants also argue that a later act in 1890 repealed any jurisdiction the Muskogee Court may have had in such matters. They assert that the District Court of the Chickasaw Nation should have jurisdiction over the case in question. The brief criticizes the plaintiffs' counsel for omitting certain provisions of the relevant acts in their argument."]](https://jones-2.s3.amazonaws.com/Claude%20Weaver%20Collection,%201861-1953/Legal%20Career-CAC_CC_055_2_0000_0000_0000/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0000-Indian%20Territory,%201895-1902/Thumbnails/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0008_thumbnail.jpg "Jurisdictional Questions in United States Court for Indian Territory")
![["The document discusses the eligibility of members of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma to represent Oklahoma in the federal Congress. It explains that, historically, Indians were not considered citizens of the United States unless specified in treaties or statutes. In 1887, a law was passed granting citizenship to Indians who received allotments or adopted civilized life, but this did not apply to the Five Civilized Tribes. In 1901, the act was amended to make members of the Five Civilized Tribes citizens of the United States."]](https://jones-2.s3.amazonaws.com/Claude%20Weaver%20Collection,%201861-1953/Legal%20Career-CAC_CC_055_2_0000_0000_0000/CAC_CC_055_2_2_2_0000-Indian%20Territory,%201895-1902/Thumbnails/CAC_CC_055_2_2_4_0001_thumbnail.jpg "Eligibility of Five Civilized Tribes Members for Federal Congress Representation")