Legal Opinion

Seidenbach's, Inc. v. Muddiman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 26, 1932No. 21707PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCullison, J.

Plaintiff instituted suit against defendant seeking to recover for services rendered defendant as an accountant and tax consultant before the United States Board of Tax Appeals. The parties will be referred to as they appear in the lower court.

Plaintiff alleged that he had rendered certain services for defendant of the reasonable value of $500, and that said amount relmained due and unpaid. Defendant answered by general denial. The cause was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff.

Defendant appeals to this, court, and submits three propositions in support of its appeal…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Local Building & Loan Ass'n v. Hudson-Houston Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
  2. Watson v. DossSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
  3. Hilsmeyer v. BlakeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  4. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. StoneSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Marland Refining Co. v. HarrelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
  2. Holmes v. ChadwellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
  3. Panther Oil & Gas Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
  4. Barnsdall Oil Co. v. RicksSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  5. Estes v. DouglassSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940

7 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