A. Helm & Son v. Briley
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from ihe District Court of Kay County; before Bayard T. Hainer, Trial Judge. STATEMENT OF FACTS. This action was originally commenced in the probate court of Kay county to recover a balance due upon a promissory note, the material allegations of the petition, omitting the title, being in the following words: ‘‘The plaintiff says there is due plaintiff from defendant, the sum of $60.00 on one certain promissory note bearing date of August 4, 1902, and due Sept. 20,…
Read the full summary
Error from ihe District Court of Kay County; before Bayard T. Hainer, Trial Judge. STATEMENT OF FACTS. This action was originally commenced in the probate court of Kay county to recover a balance due upon a promissory note, the material allegations of the petition, omitting the title, being in the following words: ‘‘The plaintiff says there is due plaintiff from defendant, the sum of $60.00 on one certain promissory note bearing date of August 4, 1902, and due Sept. 20, 1902, a copy of which note is hereto attached, marked ‘Exhibit A,’ and made a part hereof. That there is credited on said…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court by
Gillette, J.:
This was an action on a promissory note, as stated above.
To the petition of plaintiff setting forth said note a general demurrer was filed, which was overruled, and the plaintiff in error now urges in this court that because the note does not specify the year in which it shall become due, sufficient facts are not stated to entitle the plaintiff to recover.
The note was given August the 4th, 1903j and reads:
“On September 30 we promise to pay Wm. Briley the sum of $60.00 for value received. * * *”
We think this language fairly implies that the September…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Adams v. GaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- Wilson v. MilliganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- King v. FlemingIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Harrison v. ColtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Saginaw, Tuscola & Huron Railroad v. ChappellMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Goodwin v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Maryland Casualty Company v. KingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1963
- Canning v. BennettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
- Harris v. CooperSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1950
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. SwearingenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.