Legal Opinion
Blankenburg v. Norval & Dial, Inc.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided February 12, 1929No. 18914PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DIFFENDAFFER, C.
Defendant in error Norval & Dial, Inc., plaintiff below, herein designated as plaintiff, commenced this action against plaintiff in error and A. M. Todd, one of the defendants in error, herein designated as defendants, to recover the possession of a motor truck under the terms of a chattel mortgage executed by Todd to plaintiff, to secure the payment of a promissory note May 6, 1924, for the sum of $1,000, payable $250 on the 20th day of May, 1924, and $75 on the 20th day of each succeeding month up to and including March. 1925. The petition is in the usual form, and had…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- First State Bank of Keota v. BridgesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Kirkbride Drilling & Oil Co. v. SatterleeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Frickel v. Norval & Dial, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
3Cited by5 opinions
- Investors Royalty Co. v. LewisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
- Mid-West Chevrolet Corp. v. NoahSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Dawson v. SearsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
- Flatt v. WiggsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Pound v. CampbellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935