Carmichael v. Pierce
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Appeal from the District Gourt of Kay Oountyj before Bay-ard T. Eainer, District Judge. This case is brought to this court to review a certain judgment and proceedings had in the district court, of Kay county, in an action in which the plaintiff in error was plaintiff, and the defendant in error was defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Gourt of Kay Oountyj before Bay-ard T. Eainer, District Judge. This case is brought to this court to review a certain judgment and proceedings had in the district court, of Kay county, in an action in which the plaintiff in error was plaintiff, and the defendant in error was defendant. The action in the court below was replevin, to recover ihe possession of a certain quantity of wheat which the plaintiff claims he was the owner of, and of which he was entitled to-the possession, and that said possession was unlawfully and wrongfully detained from him by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court by
Ibwin, J.:
The first assignment of error is that the-court rejected material and competent evidence offered on the part of the plaintiff. We have examined the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, in this particular, and do not think that this contention can be maintained for the reason that an examination of the record will show that while the testimony complained of as having been excluded was excluded as to one witness, to-wit: the plaintiff in error, E. E. Carmichael, who the court refused to allow to testify to a conversation had with his- mother when she came…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Loman v. PaullinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Watt v. AmosSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1904
- Kilpatrick v. BrennanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1904
- Larkin v. TalleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928