Legal Opinion
Barnett v. Aetna Explosives Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 20, 1923No. 12532PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNicholson, J.
This was an action by Aetna E'rjplosives Company against Harry Churchill and W. A. Barnett, to recover the sum of $334.12, and interest, alleged to be due on a promissory note executed and delivered to the plaintiff by the defendants, which note was dated at Pang-burn, Ark., January 16, 1918, and payable to the order of the plaintiff, at the Pang-burn 'State Bank, P'angbux-n, Ark., one year-after date.
The defendant W. A. Barnett filed answer consisting of a general denial unverified, and further pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain said action against him for the reason…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Denison v. PhippsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- Offutt v. WagonerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Fuller v. AllenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- City of Shawnee v. SlankardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Wills v. National Mineral Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Wilson v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955
- Seidenbach's v. A. E. Little Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
- Wilson v. Federal Tax Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Dime Savings & Trust Co. v. HumphreysSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.