Gilpin v. Netograph MacH. Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; George W. Clark, Judge. Consolidated actions by the Ne'tograph Machine Company and others against O. E. Gilpin. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Citing: Coulter v. Clark, 160 Ind. 311; Young y. Tradnor (111..), 42 N. E.’ 139; Smith’s Estate v. Evans (111.), 70 N. E. 906; Bum v. Clarke (Minn.), 57 N. W. 662; Bice v. Davis (Pa.), 20 Atl. 513; Browh v. National, etc., Co., 30 Eed. 538; W. U. Tel.
Read the full summary
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; George W. Clark, Judge. Consolidated actions by the Ne'tograph Machine Company and others against O. E. Gilpin. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Citing: Coulter v. Clark, 160 Ind. 311; Young y. Tradnor (111..), 42 N. E.’ 139; Smith’s Estate v. Evans (111.), 70 N. E. 906; Bum v. Clarke (Minn.), 57 N. W. 662; Bice v. Davis (Pa.), 20 Atl. 513; Browh v. National, etc., Co., 30 Eed. 538; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Bailway Co., 3 Fed. 1. Citing: Lee v. McClelland (Cal.), 52 Pae. 300; Mounan v. Suiter, etc., Co. (Cal.), 22 Pac. 515; Schmidt v.…
1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.
On May 5, 1904, defendant in error, Netograph Machine Company, a foreign corporation, sued C. F. Gilpin, plaintiff in error, in the probate court of Okláhoma county, on his promissory note for $600, dated January 25, 1904, payable to it March 19, 1904, with interest and attorney’s fees in case of suit. After issue joined there was trial to a jury, which resulted in judgment for plaintiff for $680.60 and costs, from which defendant appealed to the district court. There the cause by stipulation was consolidated with the case of E. G. Ea-nkin v. C. F. Gilpin, also appealed by him from the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Davenport v. BuchananSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Coles v. KennedySupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Union Pacific Railway Co.United States Circuit Court · 1880
- Chandler v. BaconU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1887
- Walker v. Mobile & Ohio RailroadMississippi Supreme Court · 1857
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Menefee v. OxnamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Prescott v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Ewing Et Ex. v. EwingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Payne v. BeaumontCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
- J. Crouch & Son v. HuberSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.