Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Doss

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Doss

1912 OK 832, 129 P. 49, 36 Okla. 318, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 873

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 7, 1912

Docket2044

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK 832 (Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Doss) 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

Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Doss, 1912 OK 832, 129 P. 49, 36 Okla. 318, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 873 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

HARRISON, C.

In June, 1909, AnheuserBusch Brewing Association brought suit in the county court of Grady county against C. T. Doss, James Downs, Ben Jones, Dave Hill, J. W. Speake, and James A. Darnell, for the sum of $158.14, alleged to be due plaintiff on various shipments of beer at different dates between March 14, 1908, and April -20, 1908, alleged to have been ordered by C. T. Doss as the agent of Aeria No. 131, Fraternal Order of Eagles at Chickasha, Okla., composed of defendants above named and others to plaintiff unknown. Defendants denied liability on said account and denied the authority of said C. T. Doss.to contract such debt as the agent of said Order of Eagles. The cause was tried in October, 1909, and judgment rendered in favor* of defendants. From this judgment plaintiff appeals, assigning, as the principal ground for reversal, the ruling of the court in excluding the testimony of C. T. Doss, by whom plaintiff sought to prove the alleged agency. From the nature of this case and from the character of the debt sued upon, it is unnecessary to pass upon the question whether the parol testimony of the agent himself is competent to prove his agency. Conceding the rule to be that such testimony is competent, yet it is immaterial to a determination of this cause.

The record discloses that the account sued upon was for shipments of beer consigned to defendants at Chickasha, Okla. This court takes judicial cognizance that Chickasha is within that portion of the state into which it is a violation of law to introduce beverages of this character and will not lend its aid to the collection of debts made in open violation of the law.

Following the rule of this court announced in O. F. Haley Co. v. State, 34 Okla. 300, 125 Pac. 736, the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

HARRISON, C.

In June, 1909, AnheuserBusch Brewing Association brought suit in the county court of Grady county against C. T. Doss, James Downs, Ben Jones, Dave Hill, J. W. Speake, and James A. Darnell, for the sum of $158.14, alleged to be due plaintiff on various shipments of beer at different dates between March 14, 1908, and April -20, 1908, alleged to have been ordered by C. T. Doss as the agent of Aeria No. 131, Fraternal Order of Eagles at Chickasha, Okla., composed of defendants above named and others to plaintiff unknown. Defendants denied liability on said account and denied the authority of said C. T. Doss.to contract such debt as the agent of said Order of Eagles. The cause was tried in October, 1909, and judgment rendered in favor* of defendants. From this judgment plaintiff appeals, assigning, as the principal ground for reversal, the ruling of the court in excluding the testimony of C. T. Doss, by whom plaintiff sought to prove the alleged agency. From the nature of this case and from the character of the debt sued upon, it is unnecessary to pass upon the question whether the parol testimony of the agent himself is competent to prove his agency. Conceding the rule to be that such testimony is competent, yet it is immaterial to a determination of this cause.

The record discloses that the account sued upon was for shipments of beer consigned to defendants at Chickasha, Okla. This court takes judicial cognizance that Chickasha is within that portion of the state into which it is a violation of law to introduce beverages of this character and will not lend its aid to the collection of debts made in open violation of the law.

Following the rule of this court announced in O. F. Haley Co. v. State, 34 Okla. 300, 125 Pac. 736, the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 832, 129 P. 49, 36 Okla. 318, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anheuser-busch-brewing-assn-v-doss-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack