Legal Opinion
Moore v. La Salle Extension University
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 25, 1930No. 19795PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BENNETT, C.
Defendant in error, plaintiff below, sued plaintiff in error, defendant below, to recover on a promissory note for $95 and interest. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court upon motion of plaintiff, directed a verdict in his favor, and from judgment thereon defendant appealed. The question presented is as to the correctness of this action of the trial court.
The petition was in the usual form, and prayed for recovery against defendant on said promissory note, a copy of which was attached to the petition and made a part thereof and marked exhibit “A.” This exhibit is as follows:
“…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Burke v. DulaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Cockrell v. SchmittSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Conwill v. EldridgeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Republic Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. First State Bank of OiltonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Liberty National Bank v. KendallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Heskett v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
- C. R. Anthony Co., Inc. v. StroudSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941