Holmes v. Dolese Bros. Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
LOGSDON, C.
1'his was a proceeding to enforce a mattrialman’s lien. It is a special statutory proceeding, and -the remedy sought to be applied is equitable in character. No money judgment was sought to be recovered against Isaac Holmes and Carrie Holmes, and in fact none could be recovered under the provisions of the statute. Union Bond & Investment Co. v. Bernstein, 40 Okla. 527, 131) Pac. 974; Bryan v. Orient Lumber & Coal Co., 55 Okla. 370, 150 Pac. 897. Plaintiff’s lien statement was filed under the provisions of Comp. Stat. 1921, sections 7461 and 7462, and was based upon an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Stetson-Post Mill Co. v. BrownWashington Supreme Court · 1899
- Bryan v. Orient Lumber & Coal Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Cahill-Swift Mfg. Co. v. SayerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Gentry-Bowers Lumber Co. v. HamillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
- Union Bond & Inv. Co. v. BernsteinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Rogers v. Crane Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Sutherland Lumber Co. v. GaleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
- Pepin v. W. R. Thompson & Sons LBR. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
- Hall v. North Plains Concrete Service, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
- Hall v. North Plains Concrete Service, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.