New State Grocery Co. v. Wiles

1912 OK 141, 121 P. 252, 32 Okla. 87, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 222
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 6, 1912
Docket1593
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 1912 OK 141 (New State Grocery Co. v. Wiles) 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
New State Grocery Co. v. Wiles, 1912 OK 141, 121 P. 252, 32 Okla. 87, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 222 (Okla. 1912).

Opinion

Opinion by

AAíES, C.

The defendant, Welsh, conducted a hotel in Hugo. He became indebted to the plaintiff, the New State Grocery Company, for groceries. The plaintiff levied an attachment on the furniture in the hotel, and Maggie Wiles filed an interplea in the attachment case, claiming the furniture belonged to her. The plaintiff denied this claim, and further pleaded that she was estopped from claiming the furniture by having permitted Welsh to hold himself out as the owner of it. The defendant defaulted, and the case went to trial on the inter-plea. There was testimony tending to show that the interpleader owned the furniture, and there was testimony tending to show that the defendant had represented to the plaintiff that he owned *88 the furniture, that the interpleader knew of this representation, and that the credit would not have been extended, except upon the belief that the defendant did own the furniture. The inter-pleader positively denied that she knew of any such representation, or that she had participated in it. The case was submitted to the jury upon instructions, which are not complained of, and the only error assigned is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. The issue having been fairly submitted to the jury, there being a conflict in the evidence, the jury having found the fact on this conflict, and the court having approved the verdict, it will not be disturbed here.

Finding no error, we think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Related

Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Hyde
1922 OK 118 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
Incorporated Town of Sallisaw v. Chappelle
1918 OK 77 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
First Nat. Bank of Temple v. Brown
1917 OK 14 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Shawnee Nat. Bank v. Pool
1916 OK 931 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Selsor v. Arnbrecht
1916 OK 564 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
MacKey v. Nickoll
1916 OK 513 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
First Nat. Bank of Addington v. Shell
1916 OK 486 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Isenberg
1915 OK 392 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Dale
1912 OK 735 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1912 OK 141, 121 P. 252, 32 Okla. 87, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-state-grocery-co-v-wiles-okla-1912.