Legal Opinion

Globe Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Braniff

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided March 27, 1923No. 10961PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKennamer, J.

T. E. Braniff, doing business as (be T. E. Braniff Company, plaintiff, instituted this action in the district, court of Oklahoma county against the Globe Automatic Sprinkler Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover a commission of $592.41 for assisting the defendant in securing a contract for the installation of a sprinkler in the building,of the McClella nd-Gentry Motor Company of Oklahoma City. The ease was tried to a jury on April 21, 1919, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount sued for. Judgment was entered on the verdict of the jury, and motion for new trial filed…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. International Harvester Co. of America v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
  2. Garst v. Love WordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1896
  3. Maynard v. BaileyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Hallam v. BaileySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  5. Ashlock v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1908

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Loyal Protective Insurance v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  2. In re ReillyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. THE B&F CORPORATION v. CAVERSCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API