Chelsea Gin Co. v. Choctaw Cotton Oil Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Per curiam
The defendant in error prosecuted this action against the plaintiffs in error to recover balance due on two promissory notes. At the conclusion of all of the testimony the court sustained the motion of defendant in error for judgment. Erom the order overruling a motion for new trial, this appeal is prosecuted.
The decisive question presented on this appeal is whether the notes were admissible |in evidence. The notes bore the certificate of the county treasurer certifying that the taxes had been paid. Plaintiffs in error objected to the introduction of the notes, contending: (a) That it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Alexander v. WrightSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
- Fitzgerald v. BradySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
- Whittington Park Amusement Co. v. GardnerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pfrimmer v. TidwellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
- Board of County Com'rs of Seminole County v. Griffith Realty Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951