Johnson v. Henshaw
JOHNSON Et Al. v. HENSHAW
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
HARRISON, C. J.
On December 14, 1920, an opinion was rendered by this court in the above case in favor of the defendant in error ( 80 Okla. 58 , 193 Pac. 998 ), bu tit did not expressly give judgment against sureties on supersedeas bond. Motion is now made by defendant in error for judgment against such sureties. Under chapter 249, Session Laws 1915, p. 606, as construed by this court in Long v. O. R. Lang & Co., 49 Okla. 342 , 152 Pac. 1078 , Wilcox v. Wooten, 60 Okla. 204 , *101 159 Pac. 1118 , and Rumley v. Sanders et al., 62 Okla. 284 , 162 Pac. 949 , judgment should have been rendered against the sureties on the supersedeas bond.
Judgment is therefore entered in this court in favor of defendant in error, Willie Hen-shaw, nee McIntosh, a minor, by Pleas Hen-shaw, her legal guardian, against C. J. Nunn and H. L. Wood, sureties on supersedeas bond herein for the sum of $850, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from October 19, 1917, and for costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.