Wilson v. Plummer
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
The plaintiff in error was plaintiff in the trial court, and the defendants in error were defendants. They will be designated herein as they there appeared.
This action was instituted by the plaintiff filing a petition, an amended petition and a second amended petition, and since the second amended petition does not adopt or incorporate by reference the former pleadings, only the second amended petition will be considered. Burford et al. v. Kephart et al., 200 Okla. 344, 194 P. 2d 167. The pertinent parts of the second amended petition, except the caption and jurat read:
“ . . . That plaintiff…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Investors Royalty Co. v. LewisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
- Burford v. KephartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1948
- Moseley v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
3Cited by2 opinions
- Appliance Distributors, Inc. v. Mercury Electric Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1953
- Bell v. LittleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1959