Sparkman v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.

1926 OK 364, 245 P. 825, 117 Okla. 235, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 783

Opinion

Opinion by

PINKHAM, C.

The plaintiff below, opposing attorneys, and the issues are the same, and the evidence tendered by the defendants is in effect the same, as in the case of I. J. Gordon et al. v. W. T. Raw-leigh Co., No. 14285, this day decided, infra, p. 235. The opinion and syllabus in thp.t case are adopted as the opinion and syllabus in this case, and the judgment 'is affirmed.

Defendant in error in this case hrs asked for a judgment against the sureties on the supersedeas bond filed herein, in the event the judgment of the trial court should ■ be affirmed, it appearing that judgment herein was superseded by a bond on which R. D. Pratt and J. H. Pruitt were sureties. Judgment is therefore rendered against the said sureties on the supersedeas bond.

By the Court: It is so ordered.