Thomason v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.

1926 OK 369, 245 P. 829, 117 Okla. 239, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 785

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. Rawleigh Co., this day decided, ante, p. 235. The opin-v ion and syllabus in that case are adopted as the opinion and syllabus in this case, and tlie judgment is affirmed.

De ernlant in error in this case has 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filed ’herein, in the event the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, it appearing that judgment herein was superseded by a bond on whicb S. E. Neill, J. B. Boone, W. H. Neill, and Emmett Neill were sureties. Judgment is therefore rendered against the said sureties on the supersedeas bond.

By the Court: It is so ordered.