Legal Opinion

Beidleman v. Barry

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 14, 1924No. 14825PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

SHACKELFORD, C.

The plaintiff in error was the defendant in the trial court, and the defendant in error was the plaintiff. The parties will be referred to herein as plaintiff and defendant as they appeared in the trial court.

The plaintiff filed his petition in replevin in the district court of Okfuskee county, on the 24th of August, 1922. Plaintiff alleges in his petition that he is the owner and is entitled to the immediate possession of certain cotton gin machinery, definitely described in the petition, and which is alleged to be of the value of $1,925, and is' property known as…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lawton Refining Co. v. HollisterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
  2. Sand Springs R. Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  3. Neary v. EtenburnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
  4. Pierce Oil Corporation v. PuckettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  5. Norris v. HiblerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. McGrath v. DurhamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
  2. Davis v. BaileySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  3. Corbitt v. LoganSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  4. Johnston v. DillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  5. Martin v. CooganSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API