Legal Opinion
Smalley v. Bond
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided July 24, 1923No. 11413PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
RTTTH, C.
On tbe 23rd day of November, 1918, A. «T. Smalley, plaintiff, commenced an action in the district court of Pittsburg county against Mrs. Lula Bond, defendant, for specific performance of an oral contract for the purchase and sale of lot 4, block 345, in the City of McAlester. Pittsburg county, Okla., and further praying for judgment requiring the defendant to pay all taxes, both general and special, due on said property.
The plaintiff sets up in bis petition that on the-day of September, 1918, the defendant was the owner in fee simple of the said lot and employed O. P.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway v. Columbus Rolling MillSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Benavides v. HuntTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Halsell v. Renfrow and EdwardsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1904
- Halsell v. RenfrowSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1904
- Green v. ColeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Percival Construction Co. v. Miller & Miller Auctioneers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
- Beck v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- Day v. FergusonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- Percival Construction Co., and Cross-Appellee v. Miller & Miller Auctioneers, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant and v. P & a Construction Company, Inc., Counterdefendants and v. United States of America, Counterdefendant-Appellee and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
- Bartholomew v. ClausenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.