Hartsog v. Barry

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hartsog v. Barry

1923 OK 759, 219 P. 94, 95 Okla. 274, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 158

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 9, 1923

Docket12133

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1923 OK 759 (Hartsog v. Barry) 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

Hartsog v. Barry, 1923 OK 759, 219 P. 94, 95 Okla. 274, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 158 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

COCHRAN, J.

This action was commenced by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error for the purpose of setting aside a judgment of the district court of Noble county, adjudging the defendants in error to be the owners of certain land in that county. The petition alleged that the judgment of the court had been procured through false and perjured testimony by the prevailing party on material questions. The matters about which the false and perjured testimony was introduced were matters which were in issue in said cause and were tried and determined by the court and there ’were no allegations of extraneous fraud practiced by the prevailing party. The judgment was rendered on the pleading's and the judgment so rendered was in accordance with the views expressed by this court in a number of cases, the last pronouncement being the case of Clinton v. Miller, 96 Okla. —, 216 Pac. 135.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*275 JOHNSON, O. J.. and McNEILL, KENNA-MBR, and MAISON. J.T.. concur.

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

COCHRAN, J.

This action was commenced by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error for the purpose of setting aside a judgment of the district court of Noble county, adjudging the defendants in error to be the owners of certain land in that county. The petition alleged that the judgment of the court had been procured through false and perjured testimony by the prevailing party on material questions. The matters about which the false and perjured testimony was introduced were matters which were in issue in said cause and were tried and determined by the court and there ’were no allegations of extraneous fraud practiced by the prevailing party. The judgment was rendered on the pleading's and the judgment so rendered was in accordance with the views expressed by this court in a number of cases, the last pronouncement being the case of Clinton v. Miller, 96 Okla. —, 216 Pac. 135.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*275 JOHNSON, O. J.. and McNEILL, KENNA-MBR, and MAISON. J.T.. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 759, 219 P. 94, 95 Okla. 274, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartsog-v-barry-okla-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack