Legal Opinion

Latson Et Ux. v. McCollom

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 2, 1943No. 30461PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOsborn, J.

Abe Kaufman sued J. H. and Mary Latson, husband and wife, to recover judgment, on a note for $335 given to him, and on a note for $250 given to another party and purchased by Kaufman, and to foreclose real estate mortgages as security for these notes. B. S. Curtis and Mrs. B. S. Curtis were made parties defendant and they filed a cross-petition against Latsons on a note and mortgage held by them.

At the time of the trial, Latsons admitted the execution and delivery of the $335 note and withdrew any defenses thereto that had been set up in • their earlier pleadings. However, as to the $250 note…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Schmucker v. SibertSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
  2. Southern Pacific Co. v. ProsserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Waltermire v. . WestoverNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
  4. London & San Francisco Bank v. BandmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Puckhaber v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Price, Adm'xSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946
  2. Fairfax Nat. Bank v. BurtSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946
  3. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City v. StarkSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
  4. Montgomery v. WadeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1944
  5. RCB BANK v. STITTSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2026

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API