Legal Opinion

Bowersock v. Barker

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided November 14, 1939No. 29099PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHurst, J.

Plaintiff Bowersock brought this action to recover the balance due on the purchase price of an automobile sold by him to defendant Barker under a written contract. Defendant, by answer, alleged that he had been induced to enter into the contract by fraudulent misrepresentations made by plaintiff as to the condition and performance of the car, upon which matters he had no knowledge, but relied upon plaintiff’s statements; that such statements were false, and known so to be by plaintiff, who made them with such knowledge to induce defendant to enter into the contract. By cross-petition…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Miller v. Troy Laundry MacHinery Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  2. Western Silo Co. v. PruittSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  3. Hooker v. WilsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
  4. Ozark States Trust Co. v. WinklerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  5. Gulf, Colo. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. v. Brown Flight Rental One Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
  2. Gentry v. American Motorist Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
  3. G. A. Nichols, Inc. v. KarnesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
  4. Morris Chevrolet, Inc. v. Pitzer Ex Rel. PitzerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1971
  5. Oklahoma State Union of the Farmers' Educational & Cooperative Union of America v. KeathleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955

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

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

Powered by the Exa API