Legal Opinion

Fitch v. Braddock

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 23, 1923No. 11996PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion hy

MMXEY, C.

Plaintiff in error in his brief urges the first error assigned and insists that the demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained upon the grounds that the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain this action, for the reason that it was transacting business under a fictitious name or names, or name not disclosing the names of all of its members, in compliance with the provisions! of the statutes on that subject. It is admitted that the plaintiff in error, Fitch, had no pleadings setting up this defense, and did not raise it in any .other way until he raised it hy…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. A. W. Swope & Son v. Burnham, Hanna, Munger & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1898
  2. Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. WagesterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  3. Treese v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  4. W. G. Blanchard & Co. v. EzellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  5. Baker v. L. C. Van Ness & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Gallafent v. TuckerIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Cantrell v. McLemoreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
  3. Shelton v. TapleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1958
  4. Simmons v. MaxeySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  5. Oklahoma State Bank of OcheLata v. WardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927

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

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

Powered by the Exa API