Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Chickasha Cotton Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided July 7, 1953No. 35680PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

Defendant in error, as plaintiff,' sued plaintiff in error as defendant, for the balance it claimed he owed it on a feed bill. ■Verdict was for the defendant, but plaintiff’s motion for new trial was sustained and defendant has herein appealed therefrom. Our continued reference to the parties will be by their trial court designations.

The trial court’s reason for granting the new trial as set forth in his order sustaining plaintiff’s motion therefor, is “that the verdict is' Wrong and not sustained by the evidence, and further that the court could not conscientiously approve…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Lee v. Baltimore Hotel Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1939
  2. Ten Cate v. SharpSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
  3. Harper v. PrattSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
  4. Belford v. AllenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
  5. Belt v. MorrisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Draper v. LackSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1959
  2. Murr v. LandrumSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1959
  3. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. BakerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1968
  4. Weaver v. HosterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1969
  5. Weaver v. HosterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API