Wilson v. McCornack
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Mrror from the District Court of Oldahoma County; before B. F. Bwwell, District Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The record in tbis case shows that on October 28, 1892, Joseph McMullen obtained a judgment against James M. McCornack in the district court of Oklahoma county, upon two promissory notes for $2,418.00, and costs of the action. On October 28, 1897, said judgment became dormant.
Read the full summary
Mrror from the District Court of Oldahoma County; before B. F. Bwwell, District Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The record in tbis case shows that on October 28, 1892, Joseph McMullen obtained a judgment against James M. McCornack in the district court of Oklahoma county, upon two promissory notes for $2,418.00, and costs of the action. On October 28, 1897, said judgment became dormant. On March 16, 1898, said Joseph McMul-len, plaintiff in the court below, filed the following mo tion to revive said judgment: “Comes now the plaintiff, Joseph McMullen, and represents and shows to the court that…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court by
Hainer, J.:
The sole question presented by the record and discussed in the briefs of counsel is the validity of the service of the notice to revive the judgment. The record discloses that the notice to revive the judgment was served upon the defendant by the attorney of record and not by the sheriff of Oklahoma county. It is contended by the plaintiff in error that service of notice made by the attorney of record on the plaintiff is a valid service, and that the statute does not require the sheriff to serve such notice and make return thereon in order to revive a…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Smith v. BostaphSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Zahn v. ObertSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Dawson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Vinson v. CookSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
- Smith v. HenrySupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.