Trout v. Williams

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Trout v. Williams

1929 OK 422, 281 P. 224, 139 Okla. 58, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 218

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 8, 1929

Docket19207

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1929 OK 422 (Trout v. Williams) 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

Trout v. Williams, 1929 OK 422, 281 P. 224, 139 Okla. 58, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 218 (Okla. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

HUNT, j.

The question here involved was decided adversely to the contention of plaintiffs in error herein in Lavina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank, 137 Okla. 265, 278 Pac. 648, and the rule therein announced followed in Anna Eva Jacobs, nee Carney, v. Sallie E. Ambrisiter et al., 137 Okla. 227, 278 Pac. 653; Lowman v. Sharp, 137 Okla. 300, 279 Pac. 325; Watson v. Ellis, 137 Okla. 300, 279 Pac. 325; Watson v. Richards, 137 Okla. 299, 279 Pac. 326. Said eases are controlling here and decisive of the questions presented in this appeal.

It therefore follows that the judgment appealed from herein must be and the same is hereby affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except RILEY, J., dissenting, and HEFNER, J., not participating.

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

HUNT, j.

The question here involved was decided adversely to the contention of plaintiffs in error herein in Lavina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank, 137 Okla. 265, 278 Pac. 648, and the rule therein announced followed in Anna Eva Jacobs, nee Carney, v. Sallie E. Ambrisiter et al., 137 Okla. 227, 278 Pac. 653; Lowman v. Sharp, 137 Okla. 300, 279 Pac. 325; Watson v. Ellis, 137 Okla. 300, 279 Pac. 325; Watson v. Richards, 137 Okla. 299, 279 Pac. 326. Said eases are controlling here and decisive of the questions presented in this appeal.

It therefore follows that the judgment appealed from herein must be and the same is hereby affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except RILEY, J., dissenting, and HEFNER, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK 422, 281 P. 224, 139 Okla. 58, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trout-v-williams-okla-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack