Legal Opinion

Winemiller v. Matthews

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 14, 1926No. 16924PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

LOGSDON, C.

There aré numerous assignments of error in the petition in error, but in their presentation in the briefs ■all of the assignments are embraced within four propositions. The first proposition presented reads:

“The motion to consolidate filed by the ■defendants contains the substantial provisions of a bill of interpleader and at least was in the nature of such a bill, and therefore should have been sustained and the different claimants to the commission required to interplead so that it could be determined who was lawfully entitled to such commission. Especially is this true…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Emery v. Atlanta Real Estate ExchangeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
  2. Wilkinson v. StoneSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  3. Nation v. HarnessSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
  4. Rogers v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1905
  5. Hugill v. WeekleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1908

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. J. L. Lemmon Co. v. OppenheimerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
  2. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. HerrenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1948
  3. Callison v. CallisonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
  4. Callison v. CallisonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
  5. Fish v. HannaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API