Legal Opinion · Dissent

Billy v. LeFlore County Gas & Elec. Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 24, 1941No. 29385Published

1DissentGibson, J.

The decision on the first appeal, 146 Okla. 227, 293 P. 1009, holding that the plaintiffs had a right to recover, has become the law of the case, and for that reason I think the trial court erred in holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. But I am of the opinion that plaintiffs are only entitled to recover for the gas taken from the premises subsequent to January 15, 1922, together with interest on the value thereof to be computed from the time of the conversion at the rate of 6 per cent.

The following facts stand out undisputed in the record:

There was no contractual relationship…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Probst v. BearmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  2. The Texas Company v. PetittSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  3. Billy v. Le Flore County Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  4. Cornelius v. Standard Royalties Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
  5. Hendrickson v. BrannonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API