Legal Opinion
Davis v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 29, 1924No. 14797PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
LOGSDON, C.
Only two prop-sitions are presented and argued in the briefs filed herein, said propositions being ns follows:
■‘(1) That the trial court erred, in its •order sustaining defendant’s motion to strike.
“(2) That the trial court erred in overruling plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.”
Under the view taken of the case by this court both propositions may be considered and discussed together. It will be noticed that the motion ^of the defendant to strike was directed at the phrase “or by its terms could be.” This language was merely a conclusion of the pleader, was a departure,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Taylor v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Barnett v. Merchants' Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. HymesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
- Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Chattanooga Savings BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Washington Nat. Ins. Co. v. DelancySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936