Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. McDowell

1923 OK 966, 220 P. 589, 93 Okla. 201, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 386
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 13, 1923
Docket14399
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 1923 OK 966 (Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. McDowell) 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
Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. McDowell, 1923 OK 966, 220 P. 589, 93 Okla. 201, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 386 (Okla. 1923).

Opinion

Opinion by

LYONS, C.

The district court of Washington county rendered judgment in this case on two promissory notes executed by the Osage Oil & Refining Company.

The petition states a good cause of action and the judgment is sustained by the evidence and is in accordance with the law and evidence. The plaintiff in error contends that the cause was wrongfully set for trial and tried without a jury, and that the proceedings of the lower court in that respect constitute reversible error.

It appears from the record in this cause that the case was set by agreement of the parties in open court for December 9, 1922, and that the parties in open court waived a jury. On December 9th the district judge was 511 and the cause was continued for this reason without objection, to the 15th day of December, 1922, on which date the court proceeded to try the cause and render judgment.

The contention of the plaintiff in error is wholly without merit, and mis might well be a proper case for the dismissal of the appeal. However, this cause is presented here by reputable counsel for plaintiff in error who did not participate in the proceedings in the court below, and we shall therefore not dismiss the appeal, but shall, instead, affirm the judgment of the lower court and render judgment also against the sureties on the supersedeas bond.

It is ordered that the cause is affirmed, and judgment is rendered against the sureties on the supersedeas bond.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Related

Rodney v. Wise
500 A.2d 1187 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)
Vilbig Const. Co. v. Whitham
1944 OK 259 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1944)
Marathon Oil Co. v. Western Oil & Drilling Co.
1938 OK 572 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Mitchell v. Murphy
1935 OK 361 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Baldwin Baker v. Saunders-Gibson Co., Inc.
1931 OK 172 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Wagoner Oil & Gas Co. v. Marlow
1929 OK 150 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Tulsa Torpedo Co. v. Kennedy
1928 OK 383 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Porter v. Rott
1926 OK 20 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1923 OK 966, 220 P. 589, 93 Okla. 201, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osage-oil-refining-co-v-mcdowell-okla-1923.