Scott v. Jones-Everett Machine Co.

1921 OK 292, 200 P. 168, 82 Okla. 255, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 260
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 19, 1921
Docket10296
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 1921 OK 292 (Scott v. Jones-Everett Machine 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
Scott v. Jones-Everett Machine Co., 1921 OK 292, 200 P. 168, 82 Okla. 255, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 260 (Okla. 1921).

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

This action was instituted in the district court of Murray county by the defendant in error, as plaintiff, against the plaintiff in error, as defendant, to recover the sum of $249, with interest thereon, and for attorney fees in the sum of $50 and to foreclose a material-man’s lien upon the leasehold, and rig, tools, machinery, and equipment used in and about ' an oil well being drilled upon certain lands in Murray county.

The defendant answered by verified general denial. Upon calling the case for trial, counsel for the plaintiff in error demanded a trial by a jury, which was by the court denied. Upon the conclusion of the evidence of plaintiff below, defendant below demurred to the evidence, which demurrer was overruled, and to which the defendant excepted.

The plaintiff in error complains of the aetion of the trial court in refusing his *256 demand for a trial by jury. The defendant in error has filed brief in which he confesses error in' the proceedings of the trial court in this regard. The action being one for the recovery of money within the meaning of section 4993, Rev. Laws of Oklahoma, 1910, and the correctness of the account having been put in issue by the verified general denial, the trial court erred in denying a trial by a jury. Holmes v. Halstid, 76 Okla. 31, 183 Pac. 969; Choctaw Lumber Co. v. Waldock, 79 Okla. 232, 190 Pac. 866.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.

PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and ELTING, JJ., concur.

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

Related

ACCIDENT CARE AND TREATMENT CENTER v. CSAA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
2021 OK CIV APP 3 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2020)
Williams v. Bumpers
1952 OK 90 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1952)
City of Barnsdall v. Curnutt
1945 OK 327 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1945)
Conservation Oil Co. v. Graper
1935 OK 626 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Hughes v. Baker
1934 OK 446 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Hedlund v. Brogan
1934 OK 122 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Plant v. Schrock
1924 OK 339 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1921 OK 292, 200 P. 168, 82 Okla. 255, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-jones-everett-machine-co-okla-1921.