Bohart v. Hull
Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory
Appeal from the United States Court for the Southern District. C. B. Kilgore, Judge. Action by William Hull against J. C. Bohart. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in the United States Court for the Southern district of the Indian Territory, at Purcell, in said district, against the appellant, J. C. Bohart, in favor of William Hull, appellee.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the United States Court for the Southern District. C. B. Kilgore, Judge. Action by William Hull against J. C. Bohart. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in the United States Court for the Southern district of the Indian Territory, at Purcell, in said district, against the appellant, J. C. Bohart, in favor of William Hull, appellee. Plaintiff, hereinafter known as appellee, alleges in his complaint that his cause of action is upon a redelivery bond alleged to have been signed by appellant, J. C. Bohart, and others. He also alleges…
1Opinion of the CourtSpringer, C. J.
The appellant assigns but two errors to which attention is required.
The first assignment of error is on account of overruling the motion to make the complaint more definite and certain. The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled, in view of the court’s opinion as to the motion to make the complaint more definite and certain. The suit was on a redelivery bond, which was destroyed by a fire which burned up the court house at Ardmore, April 19, 1895. Counsel for appellant contend that the court should have required appellee to. file a copy of the bond sued on. He could not do this on…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Farr v. SpurckSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952