# Consolidated Cut Stone Co. v. Seidenbach

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · December 7, 1937 · 181 Okla. 578

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3832260

## Case

- **Full name:** CONSOLIDATED CUT STONE CO. Et Al. v. SEIDENBACH Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 7, 1937
- **Citations:** 181 Okla. 578; 75 P.2d 442; 1937 OK 701; 1937 Okla. LEXIS 223
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Osborn
- **Judges:** Merxll, Speci'Al, Gibson, Riley, Welch, Corn, Bayless, Osborn, Gibsoñ, Davison, Rowe, Phelps, Hurst
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3832260

## Opinion text

OSBORN, O. J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I dissent from paragraphs 2 and 7 of the syllabus of the majority opinion. I am of the view that the rule announced in J. B. Klein Iron & Foundry Co. v. Mays, 76 Okla. 177 , 184 P. 577 , controls and is decisive of the question of the right of the owner, Seidenbach, to offset his claim for damages for delay in completion of the building against the lien claimants for the reason that said rule of law, in my opinion, is erroneous, and under the facts in this case I do not believe that ^aid rule has any application for the reason that the contract provides for damages for delay in the completion of said building and that- the contractor “hereby agrees to allow and pay out of any balance that may then remain due and payable to him” certain damages for delay.
I dissent from that portion of the opinion declining a lien to Patterson Steel Company for the rental of certain “pans” used in the construction of said building for the reason that it appears th'at it contracted to furnish certain materials and furnish the labor in putting the same in place.
Otherwise, I concur in the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3832260. Public record. Not legal advice.