Legal Opinion

Maitland v. Republic Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided March 24, 1925No. 13039PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

PINKHAM, C.

This action was instituted by the' plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, against the defendants in error, as defendants, to foreclose a certain instrument as a chattel .mortgage.

The case was tried to the court upon an agreed statement of facts.

It appears that the plaintiff sold to the defendants J. D. McMahon and Federal Refining Company., a corporation, certain oil refinery stills and a boiler, and .to secure certain payments took an instrument, termed “order and purchase agreement,” 'and which instrument is termed by plaintiff and conceded by the defendant Republic Refining…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Abney v. DeLoachSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
  2. Bell v. EvansSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
  3. Barnard v. SchulerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
  4. Herron v. HarbourSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  5. Powers v. HatterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Seale Motor Co. Inc. v. StoneSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1950
  2. O'Banion v. Morris Plan Industrial BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1948
  3. Opinion No. (1980) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1980
  4. Seale Motor Co. Inc. v. StoneSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API