AULT v. PAGE

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Blatnik

    101 B.R. 718 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 1989)   Cited 6 times
    In Tindale v. Blatnik, 101 B.R. 718, 721, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma has concluded that Oklahoma common law creates the requisite trust relationship between general partners under ยง 523(a)(4).

    As between partners, a settlement of their partnership affairs effected by mutual consent is conclusive upon them in the absence of fraud or mistake clearly established. Ault v. Page, [ 82 Okl. 168] 198 P. 991 [(1921)]." Sutherland v. Groseclose, 192 Okl. 58, 133 P.2d 888 (1943).

  2. Sutherland v. Groseclose

    133 P.2d 888 (Okla. 1943)   Cited 2 times

    As between partners a settlement of their partnership affairs effected by mutual consent is conclusive upon them in the absence of fraud or mistake clearly established. Ault v. Page, 82 Okla. 168, 198 P. 991. The note upon which plaintiff sought to recover was clearly the individual obligation of the defendant and in no wise a partnership transaction, and therefore the case of Cobb v. Martin, 32 Okla. 588, 123 P. 422, and similar cases cited by defendant which involved partnership transactions, are wholly inapplicable.

  3. Williams v. Casparis Bros

    113 Okla. 51 (Okla. 1925)   Cited 13 times

    The facts herein being undisputed, the question as to whether they constitute an account stated is a question of law for the court. Ault v. Page, 82 Okla. 168, 198 P. 991; Downing v. Murray, 113 Cal. 455, 45 P. 869; McKenzie v. Ray (Cal.) 143 P. 1018; Adam Roth Gro. Co. v. Hotel Monticello Co. (Mo.) 166 S.W. 1125. Finding no error in the judgment of the lower court, the same is hereby affirmed.