Legal Opinion
Seigle v. Hamilton-Carhartt Cotton Mills
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided December 19, 1922No. 10730PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCoch'Ran, J.
This was an action commenced by defendant in error in the district court of Caddo county, for the recovery of $888.24 on an open account for goods sold and delivered to plaintiff in error. Parties will be hereinafter designated as they appeared in the trial court.
The defendant admitted that he ordered the goods set out in the open account, from the plaintiff, on August 14, 1917, and they were delivered to and accepted by him; but alleges that on the 27th day of August, 1916, A. D. Peterman, as the authorized agent of. the plaintiff, by letter, offered to sell defendant overalls for $13 per…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Davis & Co. v. MorganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. Plaskett ex rel. PlaskettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- Griffin v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892
- Croak v. TrentmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Mummenhoff v. RandallIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898
3Cited by6 opinions
- Robberson Steel Co. v. HarrellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1949
- Percival Construction Co. v. Miller & Miller Auctioneers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
- Percival Construction Co., and Cross-Appellee v. Miller & Miller Auctioneers, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant and v. P & a Construction Company, Inc., Counterdefendants and v. United States of America, Counterdefendant-Appellee and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
- BRYAN'S CAR CORNER, INC. v. MANGUMCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2016
- BRYAN'S CAR CORNER, INC. v. MANGUMCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2016
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.