Legal Opinion
Sullins v. Domer
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided February 11, 1936No. 26282PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, J.
The parties will be referred to herein as they appeared at the trial, plaintiffs in error as defendants, and defendant Sn error as plaintiff.
Plaintiff commenced this action in the district court of Noble county seeking judgment against defendants on certain promissory notes, and a decree foreclosing a real estate mortgage given' to secure payment of said notes.
Defendants filed answer in the following form:
“That the defendants deny each and every allegation in plaintiff’s petition contained, except such as may be hereinafter expressly admitted or alleged.
“2. Defendants admit the execution of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Holmes v. HalstidSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
- Marshall Mfg. Co. v. DickersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Reserve Loan Life Ins. Co. v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Jones v. BensonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
- Upham Shoe Co. v. PollardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rosser-Moon Furniture Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
- Barlow v. Prudential Ins. Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Charles F. Curry Co. v. GoodmanCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
- Commercial Standard Fire & Marine Co. v. Beard Well Servicing Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954
- Flanagan v. OxleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.