Legal Opinion

Philbrick v. Puritan Corporation

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 29, 1936No. 24840PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWelch, J.

This action was commenced in the district court of Tulsa county upon a promissory note and to foreclose a real estate mortgage given to secure the same. From a judgment and decree of foreclosure the defendants have appealed. The parties in error are referred to' herein as defendants and plaintiff, respectively, as they appeared at the trial.

Plaintiff’s petition was in the usual form employed in such actions, with the note and mortgage set out as exhibits. Defendants’ answer admitted the execution of the note and mortgage, but sought to defeat the action upon the ground that the aforesaid…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Huber v. CulpSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
  2. Moore v. StantonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  3. Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. KrumseigCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
  4. Waldrep v. Exchange State Bank of KeiferSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  5. Petersen v. ShainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Luke v. PattersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
  2. J. E. Crosbie, Inc. v. KingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
  3. Chiles v. De LanaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
  4. Cheatham v. BynumCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1977
  5. Campbell v. Dascomb-Daniel Lbr. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API