Canadian Trading Co. v. Ralls

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Canadian Trading Co. v. Ralls

1914 OK 380, 142 P. 1033, 42 Okla. 759, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 439

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 25, 1914

Docket3728

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1914 OK 380 (Canadian Trading Co. v. Ralls) 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

Canadian Trading Co. v. Ralls, 1914 OK 380, 142 P. 1033, 42 Okla. 759, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 439 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

On December 15, 1911, plaintiff filed its verified petition, asking that the defendants be enjoined and restrained from violating an oral rental contract on certain lands for the year 1912, entered into between the plaintiff and defendant J. G. Ralls, and from in any way interfering with plaintiff's possession thereof during the term of said lease. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was sustained by the court. It is evident that, if this cause were sent back to the superior court of Pittsburg county for a new trial, there would be nothing to litigate as the rental season of 1912 is long since passed, and if the defendant J. G. Ralls threatened to violate his contract for the year 1912, or in any way interfered with the plaintiff’s possession, those acts have now been committed, and plaintiff’s remedy would be for damages.

The only matters, therefore, to be determined are abstract and hypothetical questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief; and under authority of Bryan v. Sullivan, 20 Okla. 686, 119 Pac. 124, and McCullough v. Gilcrease, 40 Okla. 741, 141 Pac. 5, the appeal should be dismissed.

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

RITTENHOUSE, C.

On December 15, 1911, plaintiff filed its verified petition, asking that the defendants be enjoined and restrained from violating an oral rental contract on certain lands for the year 1912, entered into between the plaintiff and defendant J. G. Ralls, and from in any way interfering with plaintiff's possession thereof during the term of said lease. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was sustained by the court. It is evident that, if this cause were sent back to the superior court of Pittsburg county for a new trial, there would be nothing to litigate as the rental season of 1912 is long since passed, and if the defendant J. G. Ralls threatened to violate his contract for the year 1912, or in any way interfered with the plaintiff’s possession, those acts have now been committed, and plaintiff’s remedy would be for damages.

The only matters, therefore, to be determined are abstract and hypothetical questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief; and under authority of Bryan v. Sullivan, 20 Okla. 686, 119 Pac. 124, and McCullough v. Gilcrease, 40 Okla. 741, 141 Pac. 5, the appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 380, 142 P. 1033, 42 Okla. 759, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canadian-trading-co-v-ralls-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack