Legal Opinion

Kingman & Co. v. Pixley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided July 30, 1898PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Error from the Probate Court of Pa/wnee County, before Edioard L. Lemert, Probate Judge. Action by Kingman & Co-. against Daniel Pixley. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the court by

Burwell, J.:

The plaintiffs in error, Kingman & Co.,' on the - day of November, 1894, commenced a,n action against the defendant, Daniel Pixley, in the probate court of Pawnee county, on a foreign judgment fol $769.15. Issues were joined, and a trial had, which re ■suited in a judgment for the defendant. Plaintiffs appeal by transcript to this court, praying a reversal of the judgment below, and assign error as follows:

First, that the court erred in sustaining defendant’s demurrer to plaintiffs’ original petition. The record dis closes that when defendant’s demurrer to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Young v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. Rosa v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1877
  3. Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1892
  4. Oltmanns v. FindlayNebraska Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Berry and Berry v. BartonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1902
  2. Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
  3. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  4. Stonebraker-Zea Cattle Co. v. HiltonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  5. Weber v. DillonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1898

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API