Legal Opinion

Tuloma Oil Co. v. Johantgen

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 28, 1924No. 14157PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

Defendants in error began this action in the district court of Garfield county to recover against plaintiff in .error upon two promissory notes. The parties will be designated as in the trial court. Suit was begun in a county in which defendant was not domiciled nor found. Service of summons was had upon defendant in Tulsa oounty; special appearance was entered by defendant with motion to quash the summons and service thereof, and a plea to the jurisdiction of the court. This motion and plea alleged that defendant is a domestic corporation, with its principal office and place of business in…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Fisher v. FiskeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  2. F. C. Austin Manufacturing Co. v. HunterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1905
  3. Consolidated Fuel Co. v. GunnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  4. Taylor v. Enid National BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  5. Chicago Building & Manufacturing Co. v. KirbySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1901

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Guaranty State Bank of Tishomingo v. First Nat. Bank of ArdmoreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
  2. Keaton v. ShiflettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  3. Perkins v. PerkinsCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1975
  4. Commonwealth Co. v. BradburnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  5. Capital Compressed Steel Co. v. PrattSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API