Trout v. Williams

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

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.