Kirkbride Drilling Oil Co. v. Satterlee

3 Citing cases

  1. Blankenburg v. Norval Dial

    275 P. 1040 (Okla. 1929)   Cited 5 times
    In Blankenburg v. Norval Dial, Inc., et al., 135 Okla. 131, 275 P. 1040, it is said that where admissions are made by parties during the trial of a cause which clearly indicate that there is no defense to the action, it is not error to render judgment upon the pleadings and opening statement of counsel.

    The provision of the section quoted has been applied to chattel mortgages. Kirkbride Drilling Oil Co. v. Satterlee, 32 Okla. 22, 121 P. 635. On the second proposition, as pointed out, defendants' counsel admitted at least two, if not three, distinct breaches of the terms of the mortgage, any one of which would justify a judgment for plaintiff. The rule is that a motion for a peremptory instruction upon the opening statement of defendant should be denied unless such statement contains an unequivocal admission of fact absolutely entitling plaintiff to judgment.

  2. Reinheimer v. Mays

    182 P. 230 (Okla. 1919)   Cited 4 times

    There is no ambiguity in the lease in the instant case; fraud is not charged; no accident or mistake is alleged. There is a long line of decisions of this court holding that in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, where parties meet and negotiate concerning a contract, discuss its proposed terms and conditions, and finally end the matter by executing a written contract fully covering the subject, it represents the final agreement of the parties; and parol evidence tending to vary, contradict, enlarge, or narrow its terms is not admissible. Miller Bros. v. McCall, 37 Okla. 634, 133 P. 183; Kirkbride Drilling Oil Co. v. Satterlee, 32 Okla. 22, 121 P. 635; Gamble v. Riley, 39 Okla. 363, 135 P. 390; German Stock Food Co. v. Miller, 39 Okla. 634, 136 P. 426; Coyle v. Arkansas V. W. R. Co., 41 Okla. 648, 139 P. 294; Spalding v. Howard, 51 Okla. 502, 152 P. 106. We have examined the authorities cited by plaintiff in error, but fail to see wherein the same are applicable to the case at bar.

  3. Futoransky v. Pope

    157 P. 905 (Okla. 1916)   Cited 10 times
    In Futoransky v. Pope, 57 Okla. 755; 157 Pac., 905; L.R.A. 1916F, 548, it was held that where, in a suit upon a note providing for 10 per cent. attorney's fees, the Court did not submit the question of an attorney's fee to the jury, but directed them to find the amount of principal and interest, it was not error for the Court, in rendering judgment, to add 10 per cent. to the amount of the verdict as an attorney's fee.

    Parol evidence was not admissible to show the intention of the parties or to enlarge the terms of the contract. Kirkbride Drilling Co. v. Satterlee, 32 Okla. 22, 121 P. 635; Miller Bros. v. McCall Co., 37 Okla. 634, 133 P. 183. Another conclusive answer to this contention is that the defendant helped to invoice the stock of goods, and knew what it amounted to and paid for it after he had that knowledge. The next item claimed by the defendant was $150 expenses in a suit instituted by Wheeler-Motter Company. This defense the court took from the jury by an instruction, and we think properly.