Hiner v. Washita Valley Bank
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from County Court, Caddo County; C. Ross Hume, Judge. Action by T. J. Hiner against the Washita Valley Rank. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. This is an action brought by plaintiff in error, hereinafter called plaintiff, against defendant in error, hereinafter called the bank, to recover upon a protested check drawn by one Luce upon said bank in favor of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error from County Court, Caddo County; C. Ross Hume, Judge. Action by T. J. Hiner against the Washita Valley Rank. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. This is an action brought by plaintiff in error, hereinafter called plaintiff, against defendant in error, hereinafter called the bank, to recover upon a protested check drawn by one Luce upon said bank in favor of plaintiff. The undisputed evidence is that said check was given by Luce to plaintiff for the payment of a bale of cotton purchased by Luce from plaintiff. Plaintiff testified substantially that before he sold his…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
COLLIER, C.
(after stating the facts as above). Applying the well-established - rule as - to the facts admitted upon a demurrer to the-evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom, we are unable to- ■ see .any' theory upon which plaintiff can rest a successful issue in this casé. There is no privity shown .by the evidence between the bank and plaintiff that rendered the bank in any way liable to plaintiff. The many authorities cited by plaintiff, while correctly stating the law, are in no wise applicable to the facts in this case. ' Certainly there is no evidence that the bank agreed…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hawkins v. MattesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Oklahoma Hay & Grain Co. v. T. D. Randall & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Bank of Jefferson v. First Nat. Bank of MedfordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
- Barnes v. WilsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1978
- Whitlatch v. MaupinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1949