Legal Opinion
Bank of Buchanan County v. Priestly
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided September 12, 1922No. 10706PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKane, J.
This was an action for the recovery of money commenced by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, against the defendant in error, defendant below.
The sole question for review in this proceeding in error is whether the trial court erred in sustaining the motion to strike from the files the plaintiff’s third amended petition.
It seems that the trial court sustained demurrers to the first and second amend.ed petitions, in each instance granting the plaintiff leave to amend. The second amended petition was drawn in two counts. The first count alleged, in substance, that the defendant was indebted…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Berry and Berry v. BartonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1902
- The Lane Implement Co. v. Lowder and ManningSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1901
- Cates v. MilesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Campbell v. ThornburghSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Cabell v. McLishSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Home Insurance Co. of N.Y. v. WhitchurchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- McGrath v. DurhamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Miller v. GregorySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Commercial Nat. Bank of Muskogee v. AhrensSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
- Smith v. HughesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.