Legal Opinion

Binkley v. Ball

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided August 2, 1927No. 17565PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MASON, V. C. J.

The defendant in error, Loren H. Ball, as plaintiff, commenced this ■action against H. B. Binkley and Wayne Porter to recover on a promissory note for $224.25. executed by Wayne Porter and payable to H. B. Binkley and indorsed and delivered by Binkley to Ball. No service of summons was had on Porter. Binkley filed an answer and cross-petition, in which the execution of the note was admitted, but prayed that the plaintiff recover nothing, on account of a breach of warranty given on the property for which the note was delivered as part consideration, and also prayed for damages…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. International Harvester Co. v. LawyerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  2. Western Silo Co. v. CousinsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mercantile Trust Co. v. RolandSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  2. HART INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY v. CraigSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965
  3. Commercial Finance Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
  4. HART INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY v. CraigSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API