Phoenix Printing Co. v. Durham
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge. Action by Wiley B. Durham against the Phoenix Printing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
AMES, C.
The question involved in this case is whether or not the trial court should have sustained the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. In order to determine this question it is necessary to clearly state the facts. The plaintiff was a bright, capable young man, about 20 years of age, who had been employed by the defendant a number of months, the last five or six of which were in the capacity of assistant pressman. The defendant was engaged in the business of printing a daily newspaper in the city of Muskogee, and - in its business operated a sixteen-page Goss Rotary…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Hayden v. Smithville Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- Sweeney v. . Berlin and Jones Envelope Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. DriscollIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- Southern Pacific Co. v. SeleySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. DuranSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. LongSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Ponca City Ice Co. v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Dewey Portland Cement Co. v. BluntSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Anderson v. Board of Com'rs of Grant CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.