Legal Opinion

Hamil v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 11, 1938No. 27287PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RILEY. J.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace of Kingfisher county by defendants in error, herein referred to as plaintiffs, against plaintiff in error, herein referred to as defendant. Plaintiffs claimed .$51, alleged to be due for work and labor, and $25 for alleged conversion of a duofold.

Judgment was for plaintiffs in justice court, and defendant appealed to the district court, where the cause was tried to a jury resulting in a verdict and judgment in that court in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $62.

Defendant appeals to this court by pttition in error and case-made.

Th…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. ShuttSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  2. Local Building & Loan Ass'n v. Hudson-Houston Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
  3. Seidenbach's, Inc. v. MuddimanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
  4. Bilby v. AnglinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Estes v. DouglassSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
  2. Industrial Building & Loan Ass'n v. AshlockSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API