Tiger v. Pritchett
This text of 1926 OK 159 (Tiger v. Pritchett) 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.
Opinion
Opinion by
This action was originally commenced in the district court of Creek county, Okla., by Ada Tiger, plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, against M. F. Pritchett et al., defendants in error, defendants below, to recover an undivided one-fifth interest in lands in Creek county, Okla., described in the petition, together *178 with damages for unlawfully withholding possession thereof.
This cause was tried upon the same evidence as cause No. 16234, Tiger v. Wildman, 116 Okla. 171, 244 Pac. 30. The issues made up by the pleadings and decisive facts in this case are the same as in the above numbered case, except as to the names of the defendants in error, the description of the lands, and the values thereof, and the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff.
Upon said issues, facts, and legal propositions applicable, the decision in the instant ease must follow the decision in case No. 16234, supra, and the opinion in that case is adopted as the opinion in this case, and the syllabus of that case is also adopted, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed in part and reversed in part under the same orders.
By the .Court: It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1926 OK 159, 244 P. 30, 116 Okla. 177, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiger-v-pritchett-okla-1926.