American Investment Co. v. Security Trust Co. of Freeport, Ill.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

American Investment Co. v. Security Trust Co. of Freeport, Ill.

1932 OK 641, 17 P.2d 378, 161 Okla. 96, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 456

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 4, 1932

Docket21322

StatusPublished

This text of 1932 OK 641 (American Investment Co. v. Security Trust Co. of Freeport, Ill.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Investment Co. v. Security Trust Co. of Freeport, Ill., 1932 OK 641, 17 P.2d 378, 161 Okla. 96, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 456 (Okla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

KORNEGAY, J.

This is a proceeding to reverse (he action of the district court of Bryan county. The assignments of error all go to the proposition that the judge below, it being- a court case, should have *97 rendered the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error. An examination of the record shows convincingly that the lower court followed the great weight of the evidence. Had there been no evidence for the defendant in error, except the statements of the manager of the plaintiff in error, the court would have been justified in finding the way it did, considering the relation of the parties each ito the other, and the general purpose as shown by the evidence of the plaintiff in error and th© defendant in error in regard to floating loans procured by the plaintiff in error in Oklahoma and sent to the defendant in error for purpose of negotiation.

Finding no error in the case, the cause is accordingly affirmed.

OTJLLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and MeNEILL, JJ., concur. LESTER, O. J., GLARE, V. O. J., and RILEY and HEFNER, JJ., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KORNEGAY, J.

This is a proceeding to reverse (he action of the district court of Bryan county. The assignments of error all go to the proposition that the judge below, it being- a court case, should have *97 rendered the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error. An examination of the record shows convincingly that the lower court followed the great weight of the evidence. Had there been no evidence for the defendant in error, except the statements of the manager of the plaintiff in error, the court would have been justified in finding the way it did, considering the relation of the parties each ito the other, and the general purpose as shown by the evidence of the plaintiff in error and th© defendant in error in regard to floating loans procured by the plaintiff in error in Oklahoma and sent to the defendant in error for purpose of negotiation.

Finding no error in the case, the cause is accordingly affirmed.

OTJLLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and MeNEILL, JJ., concur. LESTER, O. J., GLARE, V. O. J., and RILEY and HEFNER, JJ., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK 641, 17 P.2d 378, 161 Okla. 96, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-investment-co-v-security-trust-co-of-freeport-ill-okla-1932.