Hewitt Oil & Gas Co. v. Ramsey

1927 OK 430, 261 P. 206, 128 Okla. 87, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 374
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 22, 1927
Docket17188
StatusPublished

This text of 1927 OK 430 (Hewitt Oil & Gas Co. v. Ramsey) 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
Hewitt Oil & Gas Co. v. Ramsey, 1927 OK 430, 261 P. 206, 128 Okla. 87, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 374 (Okla. 1927).

Opinion

RILEY, J.

On February 17, 1926, petitioner filed an original action in this court seeking a writ of prohibition directed to R. I-I. Ramsey and to J. W. Bolen, judge of the district court of the 7th Judicial District, commanding them to desist and refrain from further proceedings in a certain action, cause No. 7796, wherein R. H. Ramsey filed on January 21, 1926, his petition in the district court of Pontotoc County, seeking an injunction to restrain petitioners herein from certain acts, and wherein the said district judge issued a temporary restraining order and served the same upon these petitioners in Carter county. The subject-matter of the suit in Pontotoc county, cause No. 7796, is an action in personam and transitory, and petitioners are nonresidents of Pontotoc county and nonresidents of said judicial district. Petitioners plead, further, under Continental Gin Co. v. Arnold. 66 Okla. 132, 167 Pac. 613, and Culver v. Diamond, 64 Okla. 271, 167 Pac. 223. that the jurisdiction and venue to determine injunctive matters concerning the Hewitt Oil & Gas Company, a corporation, is vested exclusively within the district court of Carter county. Welch v. Ladd, 29 Okla. 93, 116 Pac. 573; Hurst v. Hannah, 107 Okla. 3, 229 Pac. 163; Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U S. 298, 25 L. Ed. 473; C. R. I. & P. v. Wynkoop (Kan.) 85 Pac. 595

The petitioners have filed their brief, but respondents have wholly failed to file briefs. From an examination of petitioners’ application and brief, we find they are entitled to the writ as prayed for. Let the writ issue.

BRANSON. O. J.. MASON. V. C. J.. and HARRTSON. PHELPS. LESTER. HUNT, CLARK, and HEFNER, JJ, concur.

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

Related

Phelps v. McDonald
99 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court, 1879)
Continental Gin Co. v. Arnold
1916 OK 214 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Hurst v. Hannah
229 P. 163 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Culver v. Diamond
1917 OK 246 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Welch v. Ladd
1911 OK 215 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Wynkoop
85 P. 595 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1927 OK 430, 261 P. 206, 128 Okla. 87, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewitt-oil-gas-co-v-ramsey-okla-1927.