Legal Opinion
Cummins v. Houghton
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 23, 1934No. 21754PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBusby, J.
The question presented in this case is: Were the vendors in a contract for the sale of real estate, which provided that the purchase price should be paid on the deferred or partial payment plan, entitled to interest on the unpaid portion of such purchase price prior to the due date of the deferred payments?
On the 5th day of May, 1920, a written contract for the sale of real estate was entered into between Margaret Cummins and G. M. Cummins, as vendors, and Sam Houghton, as vendee, which read (omitting some portions having no bearing on this controversy) as follows:
“* * * That the parties of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- American Iron & Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Seaboard Air Line RailwaySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- City of Tulsa v. WellsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- American Nat. Ins. Co. v. RardinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Thraves v. GreenleesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Elliott v. CoggswellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Douglas v. DouglasSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Pacheco v. MartinezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1981
- Lund v. LarsenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- Safe-Way Cab Service Co. v. GadberrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Revard v. Py-Ah-Hun-KahSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935