Legal Opinion · Concurrence

City of Barnsdall v. Barnsdall Nat. Bank

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided November 29, 1938No. 26045Published

1Concurrence

On. Application for Leave to Pile Second Petition for Rehearing.

Rehearing Denied.

HURST, J.

(specially concurring). After considering this case further on rehearing, I concur in the result of the majority thac the judgment must be reversed, with directions to enter judgment in favor of defendant city.

The question here s one of weighing the equities between the plaintiffs and the city under the rules announced in the former opinion (164 Okla. 167, 23 P.2d 373). I think there this court simply said that if the city has been unjustly enriched, the plintiffs’ equities are superior, but, on the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McMahan v. Board of Ed., Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  2. City of Barnsdall v. Barnsdall Nat. BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  3. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API