State Ex Rel. Barnett v. Timken

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

State Ex Rel. Barnett v. Timken

1933 OK 626, 27 P.2d 148, 166 Okla. 218, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 400

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 21, 1933

Docket25117

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK 626 (State Ex Rel. Barnett v. Timken) 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

State Ex Rel. Barnett v. Timken, 1933 OK 626, 27 P.2d 148, 166 Okla. 218, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 400 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment in an action by the Bank Commissioner in his official capacity against the defendant on a promissory note.

It appears that, under the state of the record, the appeal can be disposed of upon the merits. The district court entered a judgment staying the effect of the dissolution of the order of attachment for 30 days. The plaintiff in error seeks to have that stay of execution continued and the defendant in error takes the position that, the district court having heard the evidence and having entered an order dissolving the attachment that order should be sustained.

This makes it necessary to determine upon the merits and upon the record of the entire case what should be done with the order dissolving attachment dated October 5, 1933.

We have carefully searched the record and find no error in the order of the court dissolving the writ of attachment. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment in an action by the Bank Commissioner in his official capacity against the defendant on a promissory note.

It appears that, under the state of the record, the appeal can be disposed of upon the merits. The district court entered a judgment staying the effect of the dissolution of the order of attachment for 30 days. The plaintiff in error seeks to have that stay of execution continued and the defendant in error takes the position that, the district court having heard the evidence and having entered an order dissolving the attachment that order should be sustained.

This makes it necessary to determine upon the merits and upon the record of the entire case what should be done with the order dissolving attachment dated October 5, 1933.

We have carefully searched the record and find no error in the order of the court dissolving the writ of attachment. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 626, 27 P.2d 148, 166 Okla. 218, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-barnett-v-timken-okla-1933.