Brandt v. Lane

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Brandt v. Lane

1925 OK 361, 237 P. 459, 113 Okla. 14, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 856

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 12, 1925

Docket15737

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1925 OK 361 (Brandt v. Lane) 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

Brandt v. Lane, 1925 OK 361, 237 P. 459, 113 Okla. 14, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 856 (Okla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is appealed from the district court of Canadian county and grew out of a certain farm rental contract. Defendants in error brought suit against plaintiff in error for damages for breach of said contract and for an accounting. Plaintiffs in error filed an answer and cross-petition, whereby they denied liability and sought to recover for services rendered and for corn destroyed. Plaintiffs in error brought suit against defendant in error, Emma D. Lane, to have their verbal lease declared a lease for a period of five years. These two cases were consolidated by order of the court and heard together. A receiver was appointed to take charge of the hay and corn and make such disposition of the same as the court might direct. The consolidated cases were tried to the court and judgment rendered dismissing the case of plaintiffs in error, Frank Bx-andt, Clarence Brandt, and Harry Brandt v. Emma D. Lane, and in the case of defendant in error Thcmas Lane and Emma D. Lane v. Prank Brandt, plaintiff in error, the court ordered and directed that the cross-petition be denied, and that the receiver deliver one-third of the corn and hay to defendants in error and the remaining two-thirds to plaintiff in error, and that plaintiff in error pay the costs. The corn and hay were by- the receiver delivered to plaintiff in error and defendant in error in accordance with the judgment of the court, which was freely and without protest or qualification accepted by them and each of them, and plaintiffs in error paid all the costs of the consolidated cases. Plaintiffs in error, having accepted the benefits of the judgment, have thereby recognized its validity and have waived their rights to appeal therefrom. Lawton v. Ayers, 40 Okla. 524, 139 Pac. 963; Elliott v. Orton, 69 Okla. 233, 171 Pac. 1110; Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 11, 59 Pac. 995; Smith v. Smith, 111 Okla. 126, 236 Pac. 579.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is appealed from the district court of Canadian county and grew out of a certain farm rental contract. Defendants in error brought suit against plaintiff in error for damages for breach of said contract and for an accounting. Plaintiffs in error filed an answer and cross-petition, whereby they denied liability and sought to recover for services rendered and for corn destroyed. Plaintiffs in error brought suit against defendant in error, Emma D. Lane, to have their verbal lease declared a lease for a period of five years. These two cases were consolidated by order of the court and heard together. A receiver was appointed to take charge of the hay and corn and make such disposition of the same as the court might direct. The consolidated cases were tried to the court and judgment rendered dismissing the case of plaintiffs in error, Frank Bx-andt, Clarence Brandt, and Harry Brandt v. Emma D. Lane, and in the case of defendant in error Thcmas Lane and Emma D. Lane v. Prank Brandt, plaintiff in error, the court ordered and directed that the cross-petition be denied, and that the receiver deliver one-third of the corn and hay to defendants in error and the remaining two-thirds to plaintiff in error, and that plaintiff in error pay the costs. The corn and hay were by- the receiver delivered to plaintiff in error and defendant in error in accordance with the judgment of the court, which was freely and without protest or qualification accepted by them and each of them, and plaintiffs in error paid all the costs of the consolidated cases. Plaintiffs in error, having accepted the benefits of the judgment, have thereby recognized its validity and have waived their rights to appeal therefrom. Lawton v. Ayers, 40 Okla. 524, 139 Pac. 963; Elliott v. Orton, 69 Okla. 233, 171 Pac. 1110; Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 11, 59 Pac. 995; Smith v. Smith, 111 Okla. 126, 236 Pac. 579.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK 361, 237 P. 459, 113 Okla. 14, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandt-v-lane-okla-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack