TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Creek Bank & Trust Co. v. Johnson

CREEK BANK & TRUST CO. v. JOHNSON Et Al.

Creek Bank & Trust Co. v. Johnson, 1912 OK 662, 127 P. 480
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 22, 1912
Docket
No. 1853
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
127 P. 4801912 OK 66233 Okla. 6961912 Okla. LEXIS 776
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Sufficiency of Evidence. Where the evidence reasonably tends to support the verdict, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from Creek County Court; Josiah G. Davis, Judge. Action by James G. Johnson and others against the Creek Bank & Trust Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

On July 3, 1908, Jesse Ripley, doing business in Sapulpa, being indebted to the Creek Bank & Trust Company, plaintiff in error, in the sum of $1,441.19, executed to it a chattel mortgage on his stock of groceries, two mules, a delivery wagon, and a set of double harness, and on November 17, 1908, the same was duly filed with the register, of deeds of Creek county as required by law. On November 21, 1908, after condition broken, the mortgaged property, together with his notes and fixtures, were turned over by Ripley to the mortgagee. Shortly thereafter, defendants in error sued the bank for the amount of their account, alleging that it had assumed the payment of the debt at the time of taking over the mortgaged property, which the bank denied. There was trial to a jury and judgment for plaintiffs before a justice of the peace, and later before the county court to which the case was appealed, and the bank brings the case here. There being evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

There is no merit in the remaining assignments of error.

How later courts describe this case

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

1913: 31915: 11942: 119132026peak 1913 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Long1913 OK 751, 137 P. 1156
  2. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Newburn1913 OK 499, 136 P. 174
  3. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Clampitt1916 OK 994, 154 P. 40
  4. White v. Putnam1913 OK 524, 134 P. 406
  5. Kansas, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Dillon1942 OK 174, 135 P.2d 498

Most recent

  1. Kansas, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Dillon1942 OK 174, 135 P.2d 498
  2. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Clampitt1916 OK 994, 154 P. 40
  3. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Long1913 OK 751, 137 P. 1156
  4. White v. Putnam1913 OK 524, 134 P. 406
  5. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Newburn1913 OK 499, 136 P. 174

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