The Attorney General and the Board of Claims rejected the claim. In the aftermath, the Board of Commissioners of the Land Office determined that they were not competent to act on the matter. The Canadian Cayugas, still represented by Gen. Strong, sought mandamus relief from the Board's decision in the New York Supreme Court in Albany. The matter was argued in early August 1884. Justice Peckham affirmed the Board on August 5. Strong appealed the decision to the New York Supreme Court, General Term in Albany. The General Term reversed in March 1885, entering an order that the claim be paid. The state appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The case was argued before the Court of Appeals on April 20, by Gen. Strong and O'Brien. The state's main argument was that the determination of which Cayugas were entitled to receive the annuity was a political question reserved to the legislature. Strong argued that the treaty should be treated like an ordinary contract. The Cayuga's claim was valued at $448,000 when the Court of Appeals heard the case. The Court of Appeals held that the state courts had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Board because the court held that the plaintiffs were not the proper party to enforce the treaty: The title to the proceeding indicates that, whoever the claimants are, they have no personal, nor even associate, character; they assume to represent no one, and it is not pretended that they are authorized by statute to sue. If we look below the title we find the cause of action is a treaty stipulation between "The State of New York" and "The Cayuga Nation of Indians" ... [I]f [the treaty is] violated by either, the other contracting party can alone demand satisfaction; and neither a citizen of the state nor a member of the "Indian Nation," nor any portion of these members, unless recognized by the state as such, can complain. In a separate opinion, the Court of Appeals gave additional reasons. This additional opinion, also authored by Justice Danforth, was joined by Chief Justice Ruger and Justice Miller; Justice Earl concurred in the result; Justice Finch dissented; Justices Rapallo and Andrews did not vote. First, the court held that the Canadian Cayugas were not a party to the treaty: The commissioners may deal with a part or portion or party of a nation of Indians in respect to certain matters, but the relators are in error in supposing that they are such part or portion within the meaning or intent of the statute ...