Legal Opinion

Olson v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 18, 1898PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

On Petition for Re-Hearing.

Opinion of the court by

Tarsxey, J.:

The facts in this case are sufficiently stated in the former decision of this court. (Olson v. Thompson, this volume, p. 74.) By that decision the rule-was announced that:

“The maker of a promissory note is not the owner or entitled to the immediate possession thereof unless the-same has been paid or cancelled by a court; and until such payment or order of cancellation, an action of re-plevin for the recovery of the possession thereof by the-maker against the payee, will not lie.”

After a careful re-examination of the point involved…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Sigler v. HidySupreme Court of Iowa · 1881

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Mathews v. SniggsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  2. Columbia Bank & Trust Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  3. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. CourtneyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
  4. Dysart v. EnslowSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1898
  5. Tulsa Rig, Reel & Mfg. Co. v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917

6 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