Legal Opinion

Seidenbach's v. Underwood

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 20, 1936No. 25178PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

This court in the case of Seidenbach’s v. A. E. Little Co., 128 Okla. 65, 261 P. 175, affirmed a judgment of the district court of Tulsa county wherein in a replevin action it was adjudged that the plaintiff, A. E. Little Company, recover of the defendant, Seidenbach’s, possession of certain store fixtures or the value thereof in the sum of $1,800. The defendant during the pendency of said action in the trial court had retained possession of the property under a redelivery bond executed by said defendant and its sureties. The defendant retained possession of the property pending its appeal by…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Pabst Brewing Co. v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  2. First Nat. Bank of Mounds v. CoxSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  3. Leeper, Graves & Co. v. First Nat. Bank of HobartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  4. Board of Com'rs of Rogers County v. BaxterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  5. Rose v. Woldert Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. City of Norman v. LiddellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979
  2. Skelly Oil Co. v. FunkSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API