Legal Opinion
Markle v. Stekoll
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 22, 1929No. 18161PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TEEI-IEE, C.
This is the second appeal in this cause. The opinion of this court in the first appeal is reported as Markle v. Stekoll, 112 Okla. 287, 240 Pac. 1044, where a sufficient statement of the case appears and need not here be reiterated. As there stated, the action was brought by John Mar-kle, as plaintiff, against Harry Stekoll, as defendant, to recover the purchase price for 2,000 feet of casing, and damages sustained for that there was a breach of an “implied warranty * * * in that said casing was not suitable to perform the ordinary wbrk which it was made to do.” The first trial…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Dushane v. BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Oklahoma City Electric, Gas & Power Co. v. BaumhoffSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Caffey v. Alabama MacHinery & Supply Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1922
- Cosden Oil & Gas Co. v. MossSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Murphy v. McGrawMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mustang Fuel Corporation, a Corporation v. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, an Ohio CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1975
- McCool v. Hoover Equipment CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966
- Walker v. DuncanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1970
- Pemberton v. LongmireSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1944
- Plastic Products Corp. v. Filtrol Corp.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.