Hope Natural Gas Co. v. Ideal Gasoline Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the CourtPheli'S, J.
On the 25th day of May, 1920, plaintiffs fl-led their action in the district court of Tulsa county, alleging that the defendant, acting through its agent, Walter DuMont, falsely represented that defendant had for several years been engaged in the business of manufacturing 'gasoline fnm gas by means of a certain patented process owned by defendant and Known as the ‘'Saybolt Process,” and were engaged in designing, constructing, and operating gasoline plants for that purpose; that the process had been in use for some time in various oil fields of t'he country and had been demonstrated to bej…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mullen v. ThaxtonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Chickasaw Compress Co. v. BowSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- American Trust Co. v. ChittySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. NewburnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Yukon Mills & Grain Co. v. Imperial Roller Mills Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- City of Tulsa v. LloydSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- McAlester - Edwards Coal Co. v. StephensonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- Ponca City Milling Co. v. KrowSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Sharum v. SharumSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
- J. B. Colt Co. v. KoehnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.