Carleton v. Rushing, Judge

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Carleton v. Rushing, Judge

1910 OK 123, 109 P. 1112, 26 Okla. 432, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 78

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 10, 1910

Docket1106

StatusPublished

This text of 1910 OK 123 (Carleton v. Rushing, Judge) 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

Carleton v. Rushing, Judge, 1910 OK 123, 109 P. 1112, 26 Okla. 432, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 78 (Okla. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

*433 PEE CUEIAM.

This is an original proceeding in prohibition, filed in this court September 30, 1909, by plaintiffs, as creditors of Joshua Burdett, deceased, for themselves and all others of his creditors similarly situated, alleging, in substance, that Sudie M. Burdett, as widow of said Joshua Burdett, who died testate at Eufaula, April 3, 1906, and whose will was duly probated on July 28, 1906,. in the United States Court for the .Indian Territory, Western District, at Eufaula, was proceeding by-petition in the county court of McIntosh county against defendants named, as executors of said will, to have dower assigned to her, pursuant to the laws of Arkansas in force in the Indian Territory at the time of her husband’s death, out of the proceeds of certain life insurance policies owned by deceased at the time of his death and payable thereupon to his executors, administrators, or assigns, and which had been collected by them as his. executors; that defendant Frank W. Bushing, as judge of said county court, was without jurisdiction to assign her dower therein, but was proceeding so to do contrary to law. Later defendants pleaded to the alternative writ, raising certain questions, all of which have been passed on by this court in the case of Bell Burdett et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Sudie M. Burdett et al., Defendants in Error, infra, 109 Pac. 922. As the law laid down in that ease is decisive of the questions raised in this, the peremptory writ is denied.

All the Justices concur.

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

*433 PEE CUEIAM.

This is an original proceeding in prohibition, filed in this court September 30, 1909, by plaintiffs, as creditors of Joshua Burdett, deceased, for themselves and all others of his creditors similarly situated, alleging, in substance, that Sudie M. Burdett, as widow of said Joshua Burdett, who died testate at Eufaula, April 3, 1906, and whose will was duly probated on July 28, 1906,. in the United States Court for the .Indian Territory, Western District, at Eufaula, was proceeding by-petition in the county court of McIntosh county against defendants named, as executors of said will, to have dower assigned to her, pursuant to the laws of Arkansas in force in the Indian Territory at the time of her husband’s death, out of the proceeds of certain life insurance policies owned by deceased at the time of his death and payable thereupon to his executors, administrators, or assigns, and which had been collected by them as his. executors; that defendant Frank W. Bushing, as judge of said county court, was without jurisdiction to assign her dower therein, but was proceeding so to do contrary to law. Later defendants pleaded to the alternative writ, raising certain questions, all of which have been passed on by this court in the case of Bell Burdett et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Sudie M. Burdett et al., Defendants in Error, infra, 109 Pac. 922. As the law laid down in that ease is decisive of the questions raised in this, the peremptory writ is denied.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK 123, 109 P. 1112, 26 Okla. 432, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carleton-v-rushing-judge-okla-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack