Legal Opinion
First Nat. Bank of Stratford v. Stockton
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 19, 1926No. 14576PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
LOGSDON, O.
All of the assignments of error, 32 in number, are comprehended by and embraced in three propositions in the brief of defendant, as follows :
“(1) The loss sustained was properly Stockton’s loss, and the bank rightfully charged said sum to his account. (2) No damages were recoverable. (3) There was a misjoinder of causes of action.”
Under the first proposition; two contentions are made and urged relating to instructions. It is first contended that the trial court erred in giving paragraphs 4 and 5 of its general instructions, and in refusing to give defendant’s requested…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Aylesbury Mercantile Co. v. FitchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Griffin v. ErskineSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Chattanooga Savings BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Brennan v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Bowles v. BifflesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. EakinsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
- Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Shaw v. Union Bank and Trust Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981
- Shaw v. Union Bank and Trust Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981