Legal Opinion

Carnahan v. Gustine

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 8, 1894PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error From the District Court of 0 County. E. M. Carnahan instituted attachment proceedings in the district court of 0 county, on the 18th day of January, A. D., 1894, against A. Gustine, A. Gustine & Co. and E. Gustine. Defendants filed a motion to dissolve the attachment.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Scott, J.:

This is an action for the recovery of damages in the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000), as the result of a malicious prosecution. The petition was filed in the district court of O county, on the 18th day of January, 1894. On the same date the attachment affidavit was filed which reads as follows:

“E. M. Carnahan, being duly sworn, says: That he is the plaintiff in the above entitled action; that said plaintiff is about to commence the above entitled action, in the said court, against the said defendants for the recovery of five thousand…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Western Massachusetts Insurance v. DuffeySupreme Court of Kansas · 1864
  2. Bundrem v. DennSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
  3. McIntosh v. Comm'rs of Crawford CountySupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
  4. Cooper v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Kansas · 1865
  5. Hale v. Republican River Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1871

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Newell v. WhitwellMontana Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Shelby v. ZieglerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  3. Sonnesyn v. AkinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Millus v. Lowrey Bros.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  5. McComb v. WattSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API