City of Eufaula v. Oklahoma Corrugated Steel & Iron Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

City of Eufaula v. Oklahoma Corrugated Steel & Iron Co.

1917 OK 409, 166 P. 881, 66 Okla. 55, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 124

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 31, 1917

Docket7901

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1917 OK 409 (City of Eufaula v. Oklahoma Corrugated Steel & Iron Co.) 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

City of Eufaula v. Oklahoma Corrugated Steel & Iron Co., 1917 OK 409, 166 P. 881, 66 Okla. 55, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 124 (Okla. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

HOOKER, C.

The defendant in error instituted suit against the plaintiff in error to recover a judgment .for material sold and funished to the city by it, and In the petition it is alleged that on the 15th day of December, 1910, it entered into a- written contract with the then town of Eufaula, whereby it agreed to supply to said town goods and material to the extent of $452 m -accordance with the terms of a written contract, a copy of which is filed as a part of the petition and marked “Exhibit A,” and that in pursuance to said contract it did so furnish and deliver to the said city said material, but that said city failed and refused to pay therefor, and that there was due and owing by said city to it said sum of money. The answer of the city was a general denial, unverified, and an allegation that said material was so furnished under a guaranty that it would perform certain work and stand a certain test, which it hadi failed to do, and that by reason of this breach of warranty the material thus furnished was rendered useless and worthless to the city, as it was not suitable for the purpose for which it was purchased, and as it was warranted it would be.

In the petition it is alleged that the company and the city executed a written contract, whereby the company obligated itself to sell and deliver to the city this material for the price stipulated. The answer not being verified, the execution of this contract stands admitted under our Code of Civil Procedure; hence that issue is settled adversely to the contention of the plaintiff in error, and this case must be treated as settled, so far as the execution or tne contract is concerned, by reason of the failure of the city to deny the same under oatn.

Upon the question of a breach of warranty, the record discloses that the defendant in error denied such a warranty; hence the issue between it and the city was purely a question of fact; and, inasmuch as the trial court decided the same adversely to the contention of the city, and there being evidence to support the judgment of the court, we must give to the judgment of the court the same force and effect that we would to the verdict of a jury properly instructed).

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

By the Oourt: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

HOOKER, C.

The defendant in error instituted suit against the plaintiff in error to recover a judgment .for material sold and funished to the city by it, and In the petition it is alleged that on the 15th day of December, 1910, it entered into a- written contract with the then town of Eufaula, whereby it agreed to supply to said town goods and material to the extent of $452 m -accordance with the terms of a written contract, a copy of which is filed as a part of the petition and marked “Exhibit A,” and that in pursuance to said contract it did so furnish and deliver to the said city said material, but that said city failed and refused to pay therefor, and that there was due and owing by said city to it said sum of money. The answer of the city was a general denial, unverified, and an allegation that said material was so furnished under a guaranty that it would perform certain work and stand a certain test, which it hadi failed to do, and that by reason of this breach of warranty the material thus furnished was rendered useless and worthless to the city, as it was not suitable for the purpose for which it was purchased, and as it was warranted it would be.

In the petition it is alleged that the company and the city executed a written contract, whereby the company obligated itself to sell and deliver to the city this material for the price stipulated. The answer not being verified, the execution of this contract stands admitted under our Code of Civil Procedure; hence that issue is settled adversely to the contention of the plaintiff in error, and this case must be treated as settled, so far as the execution or tne contract is concerned, by reason of the failure of the city to deny the same under oatn.

Upon the question of a breach of warranty, the record discloses that the defendant in error denied such a warranty; hence the issue between it and the city was purely a question of fact; and, inasmuch as the trial court decided the same adversely to the contention of the city, and there being evidence to support the judgment of the court, we must give to the judgment of the court the same force and effect that we would to the verdict of a jury properly instructed).

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

By the Oourt: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK 409, 166 P. 881, 66 Okla. 55, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-eufaula-v-oklahoma-corrugated-steel-iron-co-okla-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack