Kennedy v. Uhrich

2 Citing cases

  1. King v. Long-Bell Lbr. Co.

    105 P.2d 1060 (Okla. 1940)   Cited 3 times

    See Whitfield v. Frensley Lmbr. Co., 141 Okla. 44, 283 P. 985; Spurrier Lmbr. Co. v. Montgomery, 165 Okla. 67, 24 P.2d 1005. In the absence of such an amendment we would be compelled to hold the description to be sufficient under the rule announced in the cases of Corbitt v. Logan, 163 Okla. 86, 20 P.2d 894, and Kennedy v. Uhrich, 178 Okla. 366, 62 P.2d 994. Considerable argument is devoted to the contested issues of fact.

  2. Nay v. First Financial Bank, FSB

    79 P.3d 1124 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003)   Cited 5 times

    " Florafax Int'l, Inc. v. GTE Mkt. Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 42, 933 P.2d 282, 296. Rather, in the context of § 15, the phrase connotes a description or identification sufficient, when inquiry is pursued, to enable the mortgage holder to identify the mortgage to be released and the premises effected thereby. SeeKennedy v. Uhrich, 1936 OK 453, ¶ 12, 62 P.2d 994, 996-7 (mechanic's lien competent to support foreclosure action if "description [of property] is sufficient, when inquiry is pursued, to enable a person to identify the premises intended to be described with reasonable certainty . . ."). ¶ 8 Other Oklahoma decisions have expressed similar sentiments regarding the term "reasonable certainty.