Legal Opinion

Barnsdall State Bank v. Springer

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided April 7, 1936No. 24748PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The facts, in the main, are not in dispute; and we do not deem it necessary tó review them. The trial court, at the close of the case, in what amount to findings of fact and conclusions of law, used the following language:

“In this case I have read the authorities submitted by counsel in this case. There is very little dispute on the facts, and I take it it is not necessary for a finding of facts to be made, because in fact there is no dispute about any facts in it. As I view the facts, however, Mr. Springer was engaged in the business of financing Mr. Bean, who was in the Ford business at…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hayden v. DannenbergSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
  2. First State Bank of Bristow v. O'BannonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
  3. Pollack v. Leonard & BraniffSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  4. Fidelity Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City v. CopelandSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
  5. Lowe v. DicksonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. First National Bank & Trust Co. of McAlester v. CoppinCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1992
  2. Wellshear v. MellorCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2006
  3. Parduhn v. RodmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API