Berry v. Eureka Const. Co.

1919 OK 209, 183 P. 517, 76 Okla. 146, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 140
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided July 8, 1919·No. 9005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered and adjudged :

1st. That the petition for rehearing herein be granted.

2nd. That the opinion of Mr. Commissioner Davis, filed November 12, 1918, reversing and remanding the cause, be withdrawn.

3rd. The questions involved in this action are identical with the questions involved in the case of Nitsche v. State Security Bank of Zanesville, Ohio, et al., 69 Oklahoma, 170 Pac. 234, and the opinion of this court hi that case is controlling in the instant case. It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the judgment in the instant case be affirmed under the . authority of the Nitsche case and the authorities cited in the opinion of this court in that case.

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

Berry v. Eureka Const. Co., 1919 OK 209, 183 P. 517, 76 Okla. 146, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 140 (Okla. 1919).

1919 OK 209 (Berry v. Eureka Const. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rowe v. Rowe
52 P.2d 869 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Colvin v. City of Tulsa
1926 OK 490 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Grier v. McCormick
1924 OK 261 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Berry v. McCormick
1923 OK 463 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
In re the Estate of Ferrel
192 P. 10 (Washington Supreme Court, 1920)