Legal Opinion

Okmulgee Producing & Refining Co. v. Wolf

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 30, 1923No. 10097PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCochran, J.

This action was commenced by defendant in error against plaintiff in error to recover the sum of $2,000 for services alleged to have been rendered in auditing certain books. The ease was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as they appeared in the lower court.

The defendant complains of the action of the trial court in denying to it a trial by a jury. The answer of the defendant was filed on March 13th. On March 27th, the defendant filed a verified motion to strike the case from the tria!…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lipscomb's Adm'r v. CondonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Hahn v. Brinson.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  3. Campbell v. PowellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  4. Board of Com'rs of Alfalfa Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Howard v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946
  2. Pancoast v. EldridgeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
  3. Lee Wing Chau v. Fusae K. NagaiHawaii Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Estes v. Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  5. State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. LeVanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938

6 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