Case law

First Nat. Bank of Haskell v. Dingledein

103 Okla. 81 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 30, 1924

And in support of this contention cites some authority which holds that a corporation may reissue its bonds, and that the question of relssuance is one of intention, and calls attention to the case of Crowe v. … The case of Claflin v.

Sawyer & Austin Lumber Co. v. Champlain Lumber Co.

16 Okla. 90 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 7, 1905

Johnson et al. v. Johnson, 24 Pac. 1098 ; Pattie v. Wilson, 25 Kan. 329 ; Washington v. Hobart, 17 Kan. 277 . … Frame v. Ryel, 14 Okla. 536 ; Board of Washita County v. Hubble, 8 Okla. 169 ; B. K. & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Grimes, 36 Kan. 241 ; Ryen v. Madden, 26 Pac. 680 ; Pelton v. Bauer, 35 Pac. 918 ; Eddy v.

Brinson-Kirtley Zinc & Lead Co. v. Kirtley

110 Okla. 227 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 9, 1925

Thyssen v. Davenport Ice Co., 134 Ia. 749 , 112 N. W. 177 , 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 572; Flanders v. Cobb, 88 Me. 488 , 34 Atl. 277 , 51 A. S. R. 410; Anderson v. Wetter, 103 Me. 257 , 69 Atl. 105 , 15 L. R. A. (N. … S.) 1003; Curtis v. Ford, 78 Tex. 262 , 14 S. W. 614 , 10 L. R. A. 529.

Town of Reydon v. Anderson

649 P.2d 541 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 27, 1982

In Langston City v. … Blake, 19 N.W.2d 220, 223 (1945); Board of Com’rs. of Oklahoma County v. Young, 186 Okl. 182 , 97 P.2d 6, 10 (1939); State v. City of Manhatten, 115 Kan. 794 , 225 P. 85 (1924). 6 .

Kunze v. Wilkerson

426 P.2d 340 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 31, 1967

In Brown v. … In Teuscher v.

Pitts v. Allen

138 Okla. 295 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 24, 1928

Co0. v. Taylor, 87 Okla. 140 , 209 Pac. 749 . … See, also, Taylor v. Cole (Cal.) 257 Pac. 40 ; State ex rel. Kansas City v. Trimble (Mo.) 298 S. W. 883 -37; State ex rel. Strait v. Brooks (Mo.) 293. S. W. 471; City of Ft. Worth v. Davidson (Tex.) 298 S.

Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Johnson

101 Okla. 4 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 1923

Co. v. … J., McNHILL, V. O. J.. and NICHOLSON and COCHRAN. J.T., concur.

Blundell v. Wallace

96 Okla. 26 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 9, 1923

. * * *” In the case of In re Brown's Estate, or Lynde-Bowman-Darby Co. v. … In the case of Jefferson v. Fink, 247 U.

Simonson v. Schaefer

301 P.3d 413 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 9, 2013

Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7, ¶ 4 , 85 P.3d 841, 844 . The party moving for dismissal bears the burden of proof. Tuffy's Inc. v. … The appellee cites Hathcock v.

First Nat. Bank of Tishomingo v. Latham

37 Okla. 286 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 6, 1913

First National Bank v. Lasater, 196 U. S. 115 , 35 Sup. Ct. 306, 49 L. Ed. 408 ; Daingerfield National Bank v. Ragland, 181 U. S. 46 , 21 Sup. Ct. 536, 45 L. Ed. 738 ; Brown v. Marion National Bank, 169 U. … Gray v. Brown, 49 Me. 544 ; Adams v. Moody, 91 Mo. App. 41 . .

Bank of Tuttle v. Gordon

63 Okla. 47 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 1916

In Anderson v. … Bank v. Lasater, 196 U. S. 115 , 25 Sup. Ct. 206, 49 L. Ed. 408 ; Brown v. Marion Nat. Bank, 169 U. S. 416 , 18 Sup. Ct. 390, 42 L. Ed. 801 ; Driesbach v. Nat. Bank, 104 U. S. 52 , 26 L. Ed. 658 ; Rushing v.

Welch v. Simmons

190 Okla. 611 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 5, 1942

Among these are: the purpose to be accomplished by the act (In re Cleveland’s Claim, 72 Okla. 279 , 180 P. 852 ; Blevins v. Graham Co., 72 Okla. 308 , 182 P. 247 ; Brown v. … Rollins v. Heuman, 171 Okla. 435 , 43 P. 2d 147 ; Brown v. Woods, supra; De Hasque v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., supra.

Lilly v. Russell & Co.

4 Okla. 94 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1896

(Brown v. Johnson, 14 Kansas, 377; Eddy v. Weaver, 37 Kansas, 540, 15 Pacific 492 ; Wilson v. Willey, Kan. App., 42 Pacific, 1092 .) But we think the record before us reasonably complies with this rule. … The word “testimony” was used as synonymous with “evidence” by the person making the case, and it should be so considered here -(Miller v. Wolf, 68 Iowa, 233 .)

Casker v. Dennis

208 Okla. 34 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 18, 1952

In Ware v. Tyer, 199 Okl. 96 , 182 P.2d 519 , applying the above statute and following the rule announced in Starritt v. … In Lind v.

Lindley v. Kelly

47 Okla. 328 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 15, 1914

Yeoman v. Mueller, 33 Mo. App. 343 ; Winn v. Hillyer, 43 Mo. App. 139 ; Walther v. Merrell, 6 Mo. App. 370 ; Calkins v. Chandler, 36 Mich. 320 . 24 Am. Rep. 593 ; Crawford v. Edison, 45 Ohio St. *337 239, 13 N. … Frauds, see. 570; Brown, Stat. Frauds (5th Ed.) sec. 165. Several of the cases we have cited, notably Yeoman v. Mueller, Winn v. Hillyer, and Walther v.

Rainbow Oil & Gas Co. v. Barton

70 Okla. 271 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 23, 1918

This being true, and it also appearing that the plaintiff performed the services alleged, and the company receiving the benefit of his services, with the knowledge of the general manager and at lease three of the board of … Shawnee National Bank v. Purcell Wholesale Co., 34 Okla. 34 , 124 Pac. 603 , 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 494; Crowder State Bank v. Aetna Powder Co, 41 Okla. 394 , 138 Pac. 392 , L. R. A. 1917A, 1021.

City of Tulsa v. Clark

119 Okla. 122 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 1926

Hoffman v. Eastern Wisc. Ry. Co.. 134 Wis. 603 . 115 N. W. 383 : Board of Commissioners King *124 fisher County, v. Grimes, 75 Okla. 219 , 182 Pac. 897 ; Wolf v. … Blackwell Oil & Gas Co., 77 Okla. 81 , 186 Pac. 484 ; Hickman v. Cabbott, 183 Fed. 747 ; Board of Commerce of Ann Arbor v. Security Trust Co., 225 Fed. 454 ; Hawkins v. G. W. R. R.

Wright v. Stapp-Zoe Consolidated School Dist. No. 1

190 Okla. 289 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 3, 1942

Kurn v. Helm, 182 Okla. 260 , 77 P. 2d 552 ; Carlson v. City of Helena, 39 Mont. 82 , 102 P. 39 ; McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (Rev. Ed.) vol. 6, § 2383; 44 C. J. 1124; 19 R. C. L. 984, § 280; 38 Am. … No. 7 v. Williamson, 174 Okla. 18 , 49 P. 2d 749 ; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Board of Education of City of Poteau, 158 Okla. 274 , 13 P. 2d 115 ; Kirk v. School Dist.

Territory of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Crosby v. Crum

13 Okla. 9 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1903

Crura, as probate judge of said county, to compel the defendant, ás such probate judge, to report to the board of county commissioners all fees ■ collected and received by him in entering townsites and conveying the same … (Knox County v. Asp inwall, 24 How. 377 , 383.) Both requisites must concur in every ease.” In Redfield v. Window, 137 U.

Botts-Hulme & Odell v. Tate

265 P.2d 709 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 3, 1953

In Mullen v. … See, also, in this connection Swift & Co. v. Brown, 202 Okl. 572 , 216 P.2d 294 . In a second proposition petition:-ers argue that the claim was improperly filed because it was presented by William H.