From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manglesdorf Seed Co. v. Williams

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Jun 22, 1926
247 P. 413 (Okla. 1926)

Opinion

No. 16713

Opinion Filed June 22, 1926.

Syllabus Adopted.

See syllabus in cause No. 16712, this day decided (ante, p. 255).

(Syllabus by Logsdon, C.)

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.

Error from District Court, Grady County; M. W. Pugh, Judge.

Action by W. M. Williams against Manglesdorf Seed Company, and Dorchester Brothers, a partnership. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Manglesdorf Seed Company brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.


There has been filed in this case a written stipulation signed by the attorneys of record for the parties, in which it is agreed that the briefs filed by the respective parties in the case of Manglesdorf Seed Company. Plaintiff in Error, v. Busby. Defendants in Error, No. 16712 (ante, p. 255) shall be considered as the briefs in this case, and that the decision, judgment, and mandate of this court in cause No. 16712 shall be considered as the decision, judgment, and mandate in this instant cause.

In conformity with the written stioulation of counsel the syllabus and opinion this day filed in the case numbered 16712. Manglesdorf Seed Co., Plaintiff in Error. v. E. Busby et al., Defendants in Error, are hereby referred to and adopted as the syllabus and opinion of this court in the instant case.

For the reasons stated in the opinion above referred to, the judgment of the trial court in this instant case is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant plaintiff in error a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Manglesdorf Seed Co. v. Williams

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Jun 22, 1926
247 P. 413 (Okla. 1926)
Case details for

Manglesdorf Seed Co. v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:MANGLESDORF SEED CO. v. WILLIAMS et al

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Jun 22, 1926

Citations

247 P. 413 (Okla. 1926)
247 P. 413

Citing Cases

Abbott v. Peppers

Evidently all parties tried the case on the theory that the certificate of inspection that had come from the…