Shirley v. Union Oil & Gas Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Shirley v. Union Oil & Gas Co.

1911 OK 108, 114 P. 742, 28 Okla. 330, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 100

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 21, 1911

Docket515

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1911 OK 108 (Shirley v. Union Oil & Gas 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

Shirley v. Union Oil & Gas Co., 1911 OK 108, 114 P. 742, 28 Okla. 330, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 100 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

DUNN, J.

This case presents error from the district court of Kay county. September 28, 1906, plaintiff in error, as plain-iiff, filed his petition against the defendant in error, as defendant, and Earnshaw & Kevan, as partners, for the purpose of foreclosing a subcontractor’s lien. A stipulation has been filed by the parties in this court, agreeing that the judgment rendered in the case of Christy v. Union Oil & Gas Co., ante, 114 Pac. 740, shall be the judgment rendered in this case; the only difference being in the amount recovered, should recovery be had. It follows therefore, and in accordance therewith, that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES and KANE, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., not participating.

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

DUNN, J.

This case presents error from the district court of Kay county. September 28, 1906, plaintiff in error, as plain-iiff, filed his petition against the defendant in error, as defendant, and Earnshaw & Kevan, as partners, for the purpose of foreclosing a subcontractor’s lien. A stipulation has been filed by the parties in this court, agreeing that the judgment rendered in the case of Christy v. Union Oil & Gas Co., ante, 114 Pac. 740, shall be the judgment rendered in this case; the only difference being in the amount recovered, should recovery be had. It follows therefore, and in accordance therewith, that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES and KANE, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 108, 114 P. 742, 28 Okla. 330, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shirley-v-union-oil-gas-co-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack