Still v. Cannon
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from the District Court of Canadian County; before C. F. Irwin, Trial Judge. STATEMENT OR FACTS. The agreed statement of facts contained in the record in this case, taking as it does the place of a finding of facts by the trial court, leaves for this court only the duty of applying the law to the facts thus determined.
Read the full summary
Error from the District Court of Canadian County; before C. F. Irwin, Trial Judge. STATEMENT OR FACTS. The agreed statement of facts contained in the record in this case, taking as it does the place of a finding of facts by the trial court, leaves for this court only the duty of applying the law to the facts thus determined. This statement of facts, in so far as it relates to the questions in controversy, reads as follows: "That for a long time prior to the order of attachment upon the property involved in this action the said property had been in the care and possession of one A. Lee, a…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court by
Gillette, J.:
Under this statement of facts but one question is presented to this court: To whom did the horse, carriage and harness belong at the time of the seizure thereof by the sheriff under the writ of attachment? No question of fraud or fraudulent purpose, or lack of good faith in any respect, or of the agency of Mrs. Still, is raised or presented in the case. Did the agreement between B. F. Still and George A. Still and the subsequent statement and direction of George A. Still to Lee and his acquiescence therein con stitute a change of ownership as against an…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Taylor v. WoodenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Machesky v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Sac City Canning Co. v. Griffin Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924