Palmer Clothing Co. v. Britt

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Palmer Clothing Co. v. Britt

1925 OK 261, 235 P. 1081, 110 Okla. 38, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 761

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 31, 1925

Docket15257

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK 261 (Palmer Clothing Co. v. Britt) 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

Palmer Clothing Co. v. Britt, 1925 OK 261, 235 P. 1081, 110 Okla. 38, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 761 (Okla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion- by

THOMPSON, C.

This action was commenced in the district court of Pitts-burg county by the Palmer Clothing Company, plaintiff in error, against W. O. Britt and A. E. Britt, doing. business under the name and style of Britt-Sheffield Company, defendants in error, for $881 due upon two promissory notes and an unpaid check. Judgment for defendants in error, and plaintiff in error appeals.

It was admitted by counsel for both parties in oral argument and in their briefs that the issues made up by the pleadings and the decisive facts in this case are the same as in the case of Doyle Dry Goods Company v. W. O. Britt and A. E. Britt, No. 15256, just decided by this court, 110 Okla. 35, 235 Pac. 1077. except in the name of the plaintiff in error and the. amount involved. Upon said issues, facts and the legal propositions applicable, the decision in the instant ease must follow the decision in the case, supra, which opinion is adopted as the opinion in this case and-the syllabus of that case is also adopted and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion- by

THOMPSON, C.

This action was commenced in the district court of Pitts-burg county by the Palmer Clothing Company, plaintiff in error, against W. O. Britt and A. E. Britt, doing. business under the name and style of Britt-Sheffield Company, defendants in error, for $881 due upon two promissory notes and an unpaid check. Judgment for defendants in error, and plaintiff in error appeals.

It was admitted by counsel for both parties in oral argument and in their briefs that the issues made up by the pleadings and the decisive facts in this case are the same as in the case of Doyle Dry Goods Company v. W. O. Britt and A. E. Britt, No. 15256, just decided by this court, 110 Okla. 35, 235 Pac. 1077. except in the name of the plaintiff in error and the. amount involved. Upon said issues, facts and the legal propositions applicable, the decision in the instant ease must follow the decision in the case, supra, which opinion is adopted as the opinion in this case and-the syllabus of that case is also adopted and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK 261, 235 P. 1081, 110 Okla. 38, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-clothing-co-v-britt-okla-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack