Hurford v. Smith
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Action by J. F. Smith against J. R. Hurford. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. citing: Scott v. McMillan, 76 N. Y. 141; Orman v. Datf, 5 Ela. 385; Huch v. Flintye, 20 111. 258; McCord v. Hémele, 18 111. App. 423; Cole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444; Bisquay v. Jennelot, 44 Am.
Read the full summary
Action by J. F. Smith against J. R. Hurford. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. citing: Scott v. McMillan, 76 N. Y. 141; Orman v. Datf, 5 Ela. 385; Huch v. Flintye, 20 111. 258; McCord v. Hémele, 18 111. App. 423; Cole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444; Bisquay v. Jennelot, 44 Am. Dec. 483; Preiss v. Parlcer, 67 Ala. 500; McEwan v. Nelson, 40 111. App. 272; Zein-inger v. Schmizler, 4u Kan. 63; Richardson v. Tobey, 121 Mass.. 457; Kingsland v. T.uclcer, 115 N. Y. 574. citing: Nolan v. Bull (Ore.) 33 Pae. 983; Nunez v. Dantel (U. S.) 19 Wall. 560; Smith v. Jenlcins, 41 Fed. 101; 7 Cyc., pp.…
1Opinion of the CourtHayes, J.
This is an action on a party wall contract, brought by defendant in error, J. F. Smith, plaintiff, below, against plaintiff in error, J. E. Hurford, defendant below. Although the contract is very similar in its form to a promissory note, it is nojt, strictly speaking, a promissory note; but the parties have designated it as a note, and we shall refer to it as such. In the year 1901 the firm of Beasley & Smith, of which plaintiff was a member, was the owner of lot 27, in block 24, in the city of Shawnee, and at that time the firm of Harris & Eobbins was the owner of lot 28, in the same block,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Riddle v. HannaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
- Boyle v. StiversCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1900
- Holm v. SandbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Meyers v. Van WagonerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Nalle v. PaggiTexas Supreme Court · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Horany v. TreeseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923