Legal Opinion
Fairbanks Co. v. City of Sulphur
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided December 5, 1916No. 5106PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Error from County Court, Murray County; Harry W. Fielding, Judge. Action by the Fairbanks Company against the City of Sulphur. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
DAVIS, C.
Parties mentioned
herein as in court below. Plaintiff sold defendant the following bill:
“New Orleans, Dec. 9th, 1907.
“Sold to the City of Sulphur, I. T. 6 Fairbanks hydrants, 2% bury, 4” Universal joint connections 2-2% ” hose nozzles- $27.50 each, $165.00.”
Duly sworn to by F. A. Maddox, Mgr., state of Louisiana, parish of Orleans, before W. Morgan Gurley, notary public, with seal.
The following warrant was thereafter duly issued and delivered to plaintiff by defendant:
“City Warrant.
“No. 921. $165.00.
“The treasurer of the city of Sulphur, Oklahoma, will pay to Fairbanks Co.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Higgins v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Buxton Skinner Stationery v. Bd. of Com'rs of CraigSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Holzhauer v. City of NewportCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1893
- Mountain Grove Bank v. Douglas CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Andrew County ex rel. Kirtley v. SchellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gentis v. HuntSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Martin v. Kennecott Copper Corp.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1918
- State Ex Rel. First State Bank v. Board of County Com'rsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Board of Com'rs of Sequoyah County v. Oklahoma Creosoted Lbr. & Piling Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
- Protest of St. Louis-S. F. R. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934