Choctaw, O. G. R. Co. v. Sittel

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Choctaw, O. G. R. Co. v. Sittel

1908 OK 150, 97 P. 362, 21 Okla. 679, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 166

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 23, 1908

DocketNo. 488, Ind. T.

StatusPublished

This text of 1908 OK 150 (Choctaw, O. G. R. Co. v. Sittel) 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

Choctaw, O. G. R. Co. v. Sittel, 1908 OK 150, 97 P. 362, 21 Okla. 679, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 166 (Okla. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

*683 Williams, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The same question is involved in this case as was recently decided by this court in the case of Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company v. Burgess, ante, p. 110 95 Pac. 60S. The facts in this case are identical with those in that case, wherein it was held that the plaintiff in error, as a matter of law, under the record in that case, consented for this court to take jurisdiction of said cause, and when jurisdiction had been acquired under such circumstances it-became complete, and that the plaintiff in error was bound by the same, and could not thereafter be heard to reverse its election. Under the authority of that ease, and the authorities therein cited, the motion to transfer is denied.

Dunn, Turner, and Hayes, JJ., concur: Kane, J., dissents.

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

*683 Williams, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The same question is involved in this case as was recently decided by this court in the case of Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company v. Burgess, ante, p. 110 95 Pac. 60S. The facts in this case are identical with those in that case, wherein it was held that the plaintiff in error, as a matter of law, under the record in that case, consented for this court to take jurisdiction of said cause, and when jurisdiction had been acquired under such circumstances it-became complete, and that the plaintiff in error was bound by the same, and could not thereafter be heard to reverse its election. Under the authority of that ease, and the authorities therein cited, the motion to transfer is denied.

Dunn, Turner, and Hayes, JJ., concur: Kane, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1908 OK 150, 97 P. 362, 21 Okla. 679, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/choctaw-o-g-r-co-v-sittel-okla-1908.