Randolph v. Hudson
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from the District Court of Garfield County; before John L. Me Aten, Trial Judge. STATEMENT OF FACTS'. On September 4, 1894, the defendant in error, John Hudson, commenced this action in the probate court of Garfield county against N. Randolph, to recover two hundred seventy-five dollars, with interest at twelve per centum from May 15, 1894, upon a note executed by N. Randolph to J. H. Thomas, which note was in words and figures as follows: "$275.00. Enid, O. T., May…
Read the full summary
Error from the District Court of Garfield County; before John L. Me Aten, Trial Judge. STATEMENT OF FACTS'. On September 4, 1894, the defendant in error, John Hudson, commenced this action in the probate court of Garfield county against N. Randolph, to recover two hundred seventy-five dollars, with interest at twelve per centum from May 15, 1894, upon a note executed by N. Randolph to J. H. Thomas, which note was in words and figures as follows: "$275.00. Enid, O. T., May 15, 1894. Thirty days after date I promise to pay to the order of J. H. Thomas two hundred seventy-five, ($275.00), with…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court by
Irwin, J.:
While there are several assignments of error in this case, we think it will be necessary to take notice of but three. The first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in refusing the application of the defendant in the court below to amend his answer, so as to show that the injunction writ temporarily issued by the district court had, subsequent to the rendition of judgment in the probate court, been made a final order. This assignment of error we will defer discussing until other errors assigned are disposed of.
The second error assigned is, that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Stutsman County v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Jones v. RadatzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1880
- Cayuga County National Bank v. PurdyMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Adams v. SeamanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Smith v. BakerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Farmers' Nat. Bank of Tecumseh v. McCallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Security Trust & Savings Bank of Charles City v. GleichmannSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Bell v. Riggs Et Ux.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Landon v. MoreheadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Citizens' Savings Bank of Columbus v. LandisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.