Reeder v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Reeder v. Mitchell

1934 OK 181, 31 P.2d 113, 167 Okla. 621, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 632

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 20, 1934

Docket21930

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1934 OK 181 (Reeder v. Mitchell) 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

Reeder v. Mitchell, 1934 OK 181, 31 P.2d 113, 167 Okla. 621, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 632 (Okla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDREWS, J.

The parties to this action appear here as they appeared in the trial court, and will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

This cause is before this court on a transcript of the record of the district court of Tulsa county. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the petition and dismissed the action. From that order of the court an appeal was taken to this court.

There was no complaint of extraneous fraud. The alleged perjured testimony did not relate to extraneous facts. The same is true as to the alleged suppression of testimony.

Under the rule stated in Thigpen v. Deutsch et al., 66 Okla. 19, 166 P. 901; Douglas, Adm’r, v. Hoyle, 115 Okla. 7, 240 P. 1072; Tiger v. Drumright, 95 Okla. 174, 217 P. 453; Burton et al. v. Swanson et al., 142 Okla. 134, 285 P. 839; Kendall v. Watts et al., 135 Okla. 66, 273 P. 993; Miller v. White, 129 Okla. 184, 265 P. 646, and Dooley v. Foreman, 94 Okla. 163, 221 P. 47, the trial court committed no error in sustaining the demurrer, and the judgment is affirmed.

RILEY, C. J„ CULLISON, V. O. J„ and OSBORN and BUSBY, JJ„ concur.

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