Ray v. J. I. Case Plow Works Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Ray v. J. I. Case Plow Works Co.

1936 OK 91, 54 P.2d 341, 176 Okla. 96, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 110

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 28, 1936

DocketNo. 26649.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1936 OK 91 (Ray v. J. I. Case Plow Works Co.) 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

Ray v. J. I. Case Plow Works Co., 1936 OK 91, 54 P.2d 341, 176 Okla. 96, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 110 (Okla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a third appeal from a judgment originally entered upon stipulation of the parties and involves the matter of an account between principal and agent. The original stipulation was dated December 5, 1925. Ten years have gone by and the judgment debtor is still attempting to resist the claim. The opinion in the first appeal was filed in this court September 16, 1930. The second time it came to the court was on a mere technicality involving the reorganization of the company holding the judgment. The only relief sought appears to have been determined in the first appeal and involved a matter of evidence. There is nothing new in the case and no merit in the appeal. See Ray v. Ridpath, 145 Okla. 69, 291 P. 546; Ray v. J. I. Case Plow Co., 169 Okla. 465, 37 P. (2d) 598.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

MeNEILL, O. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a third appeal from a judgment originally entered upon stipulation of the parties and involves the matter of an account between principal and agent. The original stipulation was dated December 5, 1925. Ten years have gone by and the judgment debtor is still attempting to resist the claim. The opinion in the first appeal was filed in this court September 16, 1930. The second time it came to the court was on a mere technicality involving the reorganization of the company holding the judgment. The only relief sought appears to have been determined in the first appeal and involved a matter of evidence. There is nothing new in the case and no merit in the appeal. See Ray v. Ridpath, 145 Okla. 69, 291 P. 546; Ray v. J. I. Case Plow Co., 169 Okla. 465, 37 P. (2d) 598.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

MeNEILL, O. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1936 OK 91, 54 P.2d 341, 176 Okla. 96, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-j-i-case-plow-works-co-okla-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack