The Oklahoma Law Journal, Volume 12Dennis, 1913 - Law |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 57
Page 15
... answer . That decision was not final , but interlocutory . In terms it showe that the patent was not to be effective or de- livered until he approved it , and the act 1902 declared that it must have his approval , ( sec . 59 ) . Not ...
... answer . That decision was not final , but interlocutory . In terms it showe that the patent was not to be effective or de- livered until he approved it , and the act 1902 declared that it must have his approval , ( sec . 59 ) . Not ...
Page 30
... did not intend to be bound individ- ually thereby . ( Second ) That the court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the defendants to amend their answer in the course of the trial as 30 THE OKLAHOMA LAW JOURNAL.
... did not intend to be bound individ- ually thereby . ( Second ) That the court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the defendants to amend their answer in the course of the trial as 30 THE OKLAHOMA LAW JOURNAL.
Page 31
amend their answer in the course of the trial as to material matters . ( 1 ) On the first proposition as stated above it is contended that although the contract in suit is in writing and its execution admitted in the plead- ing , yet ...
amend their answer in the course of the trial as to material matters . ( 1 ) On the first proposition as stated above it is contended that although the contract in suit is in writing and its execution admitted in the plead- ing , yet ...
Page 34
... answer , in which it was specifically admitted that they did execute the contract in suit , but that they executed the same in their official capacity as members of the executive committee . This second answer was in direct ...
... answer , in which it was specifically admitted that they did execute the contract in suit , but that they executed the same in their official capacity as members of the executive committee . This second answer was in direct ...
Page 35
would have been to again contradict their sworn answers , and would of course have necessitated a mistrial anr the continuance of the case . From a careful perusal of the record it is doubted if the offer was made upon any substantial ...
would have been to again contradict their sworn answers , and would of course have necessitated a mistrial anr the continuance of the case . From a careful perusal of the record it is doubted if the offer was made upon any substantial ...
Contents
293 | |
329 | |
333 | |
337 | |
354 | |
381 | |
389 | |
401 | |
123 | |
125 | |
169 | |
170 | |
171 | |
209 | |
230 | |
240 | |
245 | |
416 | |
429 | |
461 | |
470 | |
472 | |
481 | |
501 | |
517 | |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
action Adair County adjourn Affirmed alleged allotment appointed authority Carter County cause charged Cimarron County commission Constitution contract contributory negligence conviction corporation County Attorney County Court Court of Appeals Court of Oklahoma decision Defendant in Error Delaware county District Court duty engine Error from County Error from District evidence execution fact Federal fendant filed Geiser homestead Indian injury instruction interest issue judgment judicial July jurisdiction jury justice land lawyer lease Lee Cruce legislative legislature liability Lieutenant Governor ment motion negligence offense oil and gas Okla Oklahoma County opinion owner pardon party person petition Plaintiff in Error pleadings Pottawatomie County practice proceedings prosecution question railroad reason record Rendered reversible error Roger Mills County rule salary Secretary Section Senate session statute Supreme Court Syllabus testimony thereof tion trial court trial Judge verdict witness Woods County writ