Garst v. Love & Word

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Garst v. Love & Word

1898 OK 51, 55 P. 19, 7 Okla. 666, 1898 Okla. LEXIS 76

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 30, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1898 OK 51 (Garst v. Love & Word) 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

Garst v. Love & Word, 1898 OK 51, 55 P. 19, 7 Okla. 666, 1898 Okla. LEXIS 76 (Okla. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Burwell, J.:

This cause was submitted to this court at the June, 1896, term thereof, and an opinion filed by Justice Bierer, speaking for the court, (6 Okla. 46,) in which it was held, that the demurrer of the plaintiff in error to counts or paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of defendants’ answer should have been sustained; that the trial court erred in overruling the same, and directed that said cause be remanded to the lower court, with instructions to sustain the demurrer of plaintiff in error to the counts or paragraphs above named of defendants’ answer, which *667 counts allege, in substance, that tbe pasture in which defendants in error pastured and cared for the cattle of plaintiff in error, for which the indebtedness sued on herein is alleged to have accrued, was maintained upon government land; that the plaintiffs, defendants in error, had no right or title to the same, and that they were unlawfully maintaining an unlawful enclosure, in violation of an act of congress of February 25, 1885; that by means of this unlawful enclosure they were speculating upon government land, and were exercising absolute control and possession thereof, and that by reason of their occupancy and control of such pasture, the defendant, plaintiff in error, was required to pay pasturage for his cattle in such enclosure.

At as subsequent term of this court, a re-hearing was granted. After a consideration of the entire case, the court is satisfied that the conclusions reached in the former opinion of this court are correct.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to the trial court to overrule the demurrer to paragraphs numbered 2, 3, 4 and 5 of defendants’ answer, and to proceed with the cause in accordance with the judgment herein. The costs of this appeal to be taxed to defendants in error.

Tarsney, J., dissenting; all of he other Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of the court by

Burwell, J.:

This cause was submitted to this court at the June, 1896, term thereof, and an opinion filed by Justice Bierer, speaking for the court, (6 Okla. 46,) in which it was held, that the demurrer of the plaintiff in error to counts or paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of defendants’ answer should have been sustained; that the trial court erred in overruling the same, and directed that said cause be remanded to the lower court, with instructions to sustain the demurrer of plaintiff in error to the counts or paragraphs above named of defendants’ answer, which *667 counts allege, in substance, that tbe pasture in which defendants in error pastured and cared for the cattle of plaintiff in error, for which the indebtedness sued on herein is alleged to have accrued, was maintained upon government land; that the plaintiffs, defendants in error, had no right or title to the same, and that they were unlawfully maintaining an unlawful enclosure, in violation of an act of congress of February 25, 1885; that by means of this unlawful enclosure they were speculating upon government land, and were exercising absolute control and possession thereof, and that by reason of their occupancy and control of such pasture, the defendant, plaintiff in error, was required to pay pasturage for his cattle in such enclosure.

At as subsequent term of this court, a re-hearing was granted. After a consideration of the entire case, the court is satisfied that the conclusions reached in the former opinion of this court are correct.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to the trial court to overrule the demurrer to paragraphs numbered 2, 3, 4 and 5 of defendants’ answer, and to proceed with the cause in accordance with the judgment herein. The costs of this appeal to be taxed to defendants in error.

Tarsney, J., dissenting; all of he other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1898 OK 51, 55 P. 19, 7 Okla. 666, 1898 Okla. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garst-v-love-word-okla-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack