Legal Opinion

Richardson v. MacKay

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 4, 1896PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Error From the District Court of Kingfisher County. Andrew Mackay, Jr., brought his action in the district court of Kingfisher county on the 6th day of April, 1894, to recover the sum of six hundred and thirty-nine dollars and forty-six cents, alleged to be the balance due from the estate of Daniel Richardson, on his endorsement of a certain promissory note of John P. Jones, which note, with the endorsements thereon, is as follows: “One day after date, I promise to pay to…

Read the full summary

Error From the District Court of Kingfisher County. Andrew Mackay, Jr., brought his action in the district court of Kingfisher county on the 6th day of April, 1894, to recover the sum of six hundred and thirty-nine dollars and forty-six cents, alleged to be the balance due from the estate of Daniel Richardson, on his endorsement of a certain promissory note of John P. Jones, which note, with the endorsements thereon, is as follows: “One day after date, I promise to pay to the order of Daniel Richardson, two hundred and sixty-eight dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable without…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BiERER, J.:

There are two preliminary objections to the consideration of the errors assigned for the reversal of the judgment appealed from. The first is, that the assignments of error made by the appellant in his petition are insufficient to entitle the cause to review. Five assignments of error are made. Four of them are, indeed, very informal, and unskillfully drawn, but we think the other is sufficient. The one we hold sufficient is: “ The court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff for a new trial.”

This assignment is sufficient upon which to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Co. v. FarnhamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1893
  2. DaLee v. BlackburnSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
  3. Shepard v. M. B. Haas & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1875
  4. Gillett v. HillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  2. Bean v. RumrillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
  3. De Vitt v. City of El RenoSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  4. Federal Corp. v. Independent School District No. 13Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1980
  5. First Nat. Bank of Wetumka v. NolenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916

9 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