NATHANIEL C. FOSTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.

WILLIAM ROWE, IMPLEADED, ETC.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1909)
  …had. been hasty. See, upon the general questions discussed, United States v. Mullin, 71 Fed. Rep. 682; Rainbow v. Young, 161 Fed. Rep. 835; State v. Columbia George, 39 Oregon, 127; State v. Columbia George, 201 U. S. 641; Couture v. United States, 207 U. S. 581; Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U. S. 542. The judgment is Reversed.…
• United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442 (U.S. 1914)
  …rol of Congress for all governmental purposes, relating to the guardianship and protection of the Indians, is not open to controversy. United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 437; McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 458, 466, 468; Couture v. United States, 207 U. S. 581; United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, 290, 291; United States v. Sutton, 215 U. S. 291; Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, 315, 316; Hallowell v. United States, 221 U. S. 317; United States v. Wright, 229 U. S. 226, 237. Thus, in…
• Hallowell v. United States, 221 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1911)
  …ion and control over Indian lands remained in the United States, Congress had the right to forbid the intro [*324] duetion of liquor into such territory, and to provide for the punishment of those found guilty thereof. Couture, Jr. v. United States, 207 U. S. 581, was cited where á conviction for introducing liquor into the Indian country was affirmed. In the case at bar, the United States had not parted with the title to the lands, but still held them in trust for the Indians. In that situation its power t…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• Taylor v. Secor, 92 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1875)
• Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1893)