Choctaw, O. W. R. Co. v. Castanien
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from District Court, Logan County; John H. Burford, Judge. ■ . • . Action by Charles E. Castanien and others against the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Western Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, from which both parties brought error to the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma, whence the causé is transferred to the Supreme Court of the state of Oklahoma.
Read the full summary
Error from District Court, Logan County; John H. Burford, Judge. ■ . • . Action by Charles E. Castanien and others against the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Western Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, from which both parties brought error to the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma, whence the causé is transferred to the Supreme Court of the state of Oklahoma. On March 2o, 1903, Charles E. Castanien, C. A. Castanien, and Frank A. Castanien, defendants in error, plaintiffs below, sued the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Western Railroad Company, plaintiff in error, defendant below, in the district…
1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.
(after- stating the facts as above). The chief contention made by plaintiff in error the railroad company is that the court erred in overruling its motion for judgment non obstante, claiming the special findings to be inconsistent with the general verdict and invoking the statutes to the effect that where such is the case the trial court may give judgment accordingly. St. Okla. 1893, §§ 4175, 4176, 4177. Where the special findings show a state of facts inconsistent with the general verdict, such finding of fact must control. Severy Ad. v. C., R. I. & P. Co., 6 Okla. 153, 50 Pac. 162. It is…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Buhl v. Fort Street Union Depot Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Atchison Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. PlunkettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Tobie v. Commissioners of Brown CountySupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
- Foster Lumber Co. v. Arkansas Valley & W. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Rochette v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Terminal Oil Mill Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Barnes v. Universal Tire Protector Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Foster v. LeftwichSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Choctaw, O. & G. R. v. HamiltonDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 1910
- Coy v. City of TulsaDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1933
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.