Legal Opinion

Kemper, Hundley & McDonald Dry Goods Co. v. Fischel

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 13, 1896PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error from the Probate Court of Cleveland County.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burrord, J.:

The plaintiff in errror brought Reaction against the defendant in error to recover the sum of four hundred and thirty-five dollars, for goods and merchandise sold the defendent.

An affidavit for attachment was filed by plaintiff which contained four causes for attachment, only one of which is relied upon in the argument in this court, to-wit, the third, “ and is about to assign, remove and dispose of his property, or a part thereof with the intent to defraud, hinder, and delay his creditors.” Defendant filed his motion to discharge the…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Davis v. HoweSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  2. Gungoll v. ElsberrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  3. Kelly v. ScottSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
  4. Schulte v. Board of County Com'rsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  5. First State Bank of Durant v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API