Legal Opinion
Capitol Hill Undertaking Co. v. Render
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided March 10, 1931No. 19828PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.
The defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, recovered a judgment in the district court of Oklahoma county against the plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, to the effect that the defendant, within ten days from the date of the judgment, “* * * issue and deliver to the plaintiff a certificate for. 28 shares of its capital stock- out of the unissued portion of such capital stock and deliver the same to plaintiff, and in the event that defendant fails, refuses or neglects to issue said certificate for 23 shares of capital stock and deliver same to plaintiff…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- McNeil v. . the Tenth National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Telegraph Co. v. DavenportSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Bentley v. Zelma Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
- Northwestern Portland Cement Co. v. Atlantic Portland Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Thompson v. TolandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Smoot v. B & J Restoration Services, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2012
- Chatz v. Midco Oil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1945
- Render v. Capitol Hill Undertaking Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Render v. Capitol Hill Undertaking Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Agosta v. Southwest Breeders, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1991