Barham v. Gilbert

1936 OK 625, 61 P.2d 645, 178 Okla. 15, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 467
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided October 20, 1936·No. No. 26776.·Published·Cited by 24 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in foreclosure. A judgment was obtained by the Prudential Insurance Company of America on its cross-petition foreclosing its mortgage on certain real property. John I. Gilbert, as receiver of' Gum Brothers, a corporation, was also awarded a judgment. In the brief of the plaintiff in error it is stated:

“The only point involved in this case is that the Prudential Insurance Company was a nonresident corporation doing a general loan business in the state of Oklahoma and has never complied with sections 131, 132, and 135 of the Compiled Laws of 1931, and has not complied with section 43, article 9, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, and cannot maintain a suit on the contract sued on.”

John r. Gilbert, as receiver of Gum Brothers Company, has filed a motion to dismiss for the reason that there is no contest upon the right of ,John T. Gilbert as receiver to have his judgment.

Response to the motion has been filed, which is in effect an admission of this motion, and we see no reason to trouble the receiver with the necessity of filing a brief, and the motion to dismiss is therefore sustained without prejudice to the plaintiffs in error to have determined the question remaining between the plaintiffs in error and the Prudential Insurance Company of America.

MeNEILL, C. J.. OSBORN, V. O. J., and PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur. RILEY, BAYLESS, BUSBY, and WELCH, JJ., absent.

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

Barham v. Gilbert, 1936 OK 625, 61 P.2d 645, 178 Okla. 15, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 467 (Okla. 1936).

1936 OK 625 (Barham v. Gilbert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS v. OKLAHOMA SCHOOL PICTURES
2024 OK CIV APP 17 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2023)
Hatfield v. Thompson (In re Thompson)
585 B.R. 890 (W.D. Oklahoma, 2017)
Hitch Enterprises, Inc. v. Cimarex Energy Co.
859 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (W.D. Oklahoma, 2012)
In re Expert South Tulsa, LLC
506 B.R. 298 (D. Kansas, 2011)
Hamilton v. Water Whole International Corp.
302 F. App'x 789 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)
McCall v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
2007 OK CIV APP 59 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2007)
King v. Modern Music Co.
2001 OK CIV APP 126 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2001)
Roberts Ranch Co. v. Exxon Corp.
43 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1997)
Warner v. Hillcrest Medical Center
1995 OK CIV APP 123 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1995)
Oklahoma Oil & Gas Exploration Drilling Program 1983-A v. W.M.A. Corp.
1994 OK CIV APP 11 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1994)
Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hospital Authority
775 P.2d 281 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1989)
Tara Petroleum Corp. v. Hughey
1981 OK 65 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1981)
Opinion No. 70-244 (1970) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1970
Sautbine v. Keller
1966 OK 209 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1966)
Mull v. Colt Co.
31 F.R.D. 154 (S.D. New York, 1962)
Gulf Oil Corporation v. State
1961 OK 71 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1961)