
    William H. Bates, Respondent, v. Daniel Printup et al., Appellants.
    (County Court, Niagara County,
    March, 1900.)
    Indians — Jurisdiction.
    The courts of the State of New York have jurisdiction of an action in tort brought against Indians who are members of the Tusearora tribe.
    This action was brought in the court below by the plaintiff as the assignee of one Eleazer Printup on October 30, 1899, before a justice of the peace for the conversion of a number of bushels óf apples by the defendants.
    The apples had been harvested on the Tuscarora Indian Reservation, within the town of Lewiston, Niagara county, N. Y., and the defendants were all Tuscarora Indians. The plaintiff was a white man, and his assignor, Eleazer Printup, was an Indian, the son of the defendant, Daniel Printup.
    After a trial on the merits, the justice of the peace rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $7.50 damages and $10 costs,, sounding in tort.
    From that judgment the defendants appealed on November 18,. 1899, to the Niagara County Court, where it was argued on January 15, 1900. By stipulation of both parties, the only question presented to the County Court for determination was, whether the courts of New York State have jurisdiction in such actions over Tuscarora Indians. OnIIarch second, the county judge handed down a decision, affirming the judgment below, with costs, and also wrote the following opinion.
    Brong & Jeffery, for appellants.
    W. E. Lockner, for respondent.
   Hickey, J.

The defendants and appellants are Tuscarora Indians. Judgment was rendered against them in the court below in an action sounding in tort. From that judgment they have appealed to this' court, and the only question presented for consideration is, whether or not the courts of this State have jurisdiction in such actions over Tuscarora Indians. This question must be answered in the affirmative, for it appears that the courts have already so decided. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Hill, 60 Hun, 347; Crouse v. N. Y., Penn. & Ohio R. R. Co., 49 id. 576; Jemmison v. Kennedy, 55 id. 47.

It has been suggested by counsel that this court write at length upon this question. We see no occasion for so doing. So far as this court is concerned, the question is not an open one, as the decisions referred to must control.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  