TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bank of Union v. Boggs

BANK OF UNION v. BOGGS Et Al.

Bank of Union v. Boggs, 1933 OK 1, 17 P.2d 457
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 3, 1933
Docket
No. 21493
Judges
Hefner, Riley, Swi'Ndall, Andrews, Mc-Neill, Korneigay, Lester, Clark, Cul-Lison
Citations
17 P.2d 4571933 OK 1161 Okla. 1691933 Okla. LEXIS 437

Opinion of the Court — Hefner

HEFNER, J.

This is an action brought in ithe district court of Major county by the Bank of Union against J. A. Boggis and D. W. Dittmeyer to recover the sum of $357, interest, and attorney’s fee on a promissory note. Defendants pleaded the statute of limitation. Trial was to a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of defendants.

Plaintiff has appealed and asserts that, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the defense of limitation. The note was executed by defendants on March 22, 1922, and matured August 1, 1922. This action was instituted on April 19, 1928. In order to toll the statute, plaintiff pleaded payment of the interest for one year, and $13 on the principal on 'August' 1, 19'22, the date upon which the note matured. Defendants denied this payment and testified that they at no time made payment of either the principal or interest on the note. The evidence show® that an agent of plaintiff bank collected from defendant Boggs the sum of $49.90 on the date credit was made on the note. Boggs testified that that was paid to take ,up the balance due on a $52 note due the bank; that he directed that payment be made on that note; and that the bank had no authority to credit any amount on the note here involved. This, of course, was denied by the representative of the bank.

The jury found in favor of defendants. There is competent evidence to siupport the finding, and, under the repeated holding of this court, we are bound thereby.

The judgment is affirmed.

RILEY, SWI'NDALL, ANDREWS, MC-NEILL, and KORNEIGAY, JJ., concur. LESTER, O. J., CLARK, Y. O. J.. and CUL-LISON, J., absent.

Note.—See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 194; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 368; R. C. L. Pocket Part, title “Appeal,” § 167.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 11937: 11938: 11940: 11947: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cawrse v. Signal Oil Co.103 P.2d 729 (Or. 1940)
  2. City of Lawton v. Sherman MacHine & Iron Works1938 OK 175, 77 P.2d 567
  3. Noble v. Johnson1937 OK 337, 68 P.2d 838
  4. Farmers National Bank of Sulphur v. Bell54 P.2d 1072 (Okla. 1936)
  5. Dunlap v. Orwig1947 OK 337, 186 P.2d 659

Most recent

  1. Dunlap v. Orwig1947 OK 337, 186 P.2d 659
  2. Cawrse v. Signal Oil Co.103 P.2d 729 (Or. 1940)
  3. City of Lawton v. Sherman MacHine & Iron Works1938 OK 175, 77 P.2d 567
  4. Noble v. Johnson1937 OK 337, 68 P.2d 838
  5. Farmers National Bank of Sulphur v. Bell54 P.2d 1072 (Okla. 1936)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list