New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City
NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO. v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OKLAHOMA CITY Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
McNEILL, J.
This is a companion case to No. 19796, entitled “New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. First National Bank, Oklahoma City et al.,” this day decided by this court. ( 154 Okla. 74 , 6 P. (2d) 779 .) The parties are the same, except that in case No. 19796 the Exchange National Bank of Ardmore was codefendant with the First National Bank of Oklahoma City, Okla. In the case at bar, the American. National Bank of Ardmore is a eodefendant with the First National Bank of Oklahoma City. The pleadings, evidence, agreed stipulation of facts and briefs are substantially the same as in case No. 19796. In the case at bar the check involved is in the sum of $6,461.05, being one of the two cashier’s checks of the First National Bank of Oklahoma City mentioned in said cause No. 19796 payable to “S. F. Haynie, County Treasurer.” The same was indorsed by “S. F. Haynie, County Treas. urer, Carter County, Okla., and presented to said American National Bank of Ardmore instead of to said Exchange National Bank. The American National Bank paid the proceeds thereof to said S. F. Haynie individually, upon his request, and the same was misappropriated by said Haynie to the detriment of Carter county.
In view of the opinion in case No. 19796, we hold that the principles of law therein announced are controlling herein, and that the judgment of the trial court should be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
LESTER, C. J., CLARK, V. C. J., and CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. RILEY, J., dissents. PUGH, Special Justice, absent.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding slander of title action does not accrue until defendant ceases to make adverse claims against title)
-
(where the statute of limitations for slander of title regarding a continued claim on the property in question was held not to begin to run until the defendant's claim ceased)
-
(“Where the slander complained of consists of a continued claim of rights in plaintiffs property by defendant, the statute of limitations does not commence to run until defendant ceases to set up his adverse claims.”)
Cited by 22 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.