Legal Opinion

Ross v. Ross

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 4, 1936No. 26304PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

July 18, 1934, Motto Ross, as an incompetent and insane person, by J. Walter Davidson, guardian, sued Myrtle Ross for annulment of the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant, on the ground that plaintiff at all times since 1919 had been wholly incompetent mentally to enter into said marriage contract.

Myrtle Ross filed a general denial and further pleaded that she and plaintiff were married at Nowata November 7, 1922; that if plaintiff was an incompetent person at that time, he was restored to competency by the county court of Cherokee county November 7. 1923, and that he was normal,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of GregorsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Hunt v. HuntSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  3. Thorpe v. HanscomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
  4. Etchen v. the Texas Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  5. Fearnow v. JonesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
  2. Rudisaile v. BraceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
  3. Bradford v. ParkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API