From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sparkman v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Apr 13, 1926
117 Okla. 235 (Okla. 1926)

Opinion

No. 14284

Opinion Filed April 13, 1926. Rehearing Denied April 27, 1926.

Error from District Court, Garvin County; W. L. Eagleton, Judge.

Action by W. T. Rawleigh Company against T. L. Sparkman et al. From judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Cicero I. Murray, for plaintiffs in error.

Sam K. Sullivan, R. J. Shive, and Bowling Farmer, for defendant in error.


The plaintiff below, opposing attorneys, and the issues are the same, and the evidence tendered by the defendants is in effect the same, as in the case of I. J. Gordon et al. v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., No. 14285, this day decided, infra, p. 235. The opinion and syllabus in that case are adopted as the opinion and syllabus in this case, and the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant in error in this case has asked for a judgment against the sureties on the supersedeas bond filed herein, in the event the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, it appearing that judgment herein was superseded by a bond on which R. D. Pratt and J. H. Pruitt were sureties. Judgment is therefore rendered against the said sureties on the supersedeas bond.

By the Court: It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Sparkman v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Apr 13, 1926
117 Okla. 235 (Okla. 1926)
Case details for

Sparkman v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.

Case Details

Full title:SPARKMAN et al. v. W. T. RAWLEIGH CO

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Apr 13, 1926

Citations

117 Okla. 235 (Okla. 1926)
245 P. 825

Citing Cases

W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Miller

The supreme court of Oklahoma considered guaranty contracts identical, or at least, quite similar to the one…

R.J. Watkins Co. v. Peterson

Castelline v. Pray, 200 Iowa 695; Henderson v. Booth, 11 Iowa 212; Sabin Moon v. Harris, 12 Iowa 87; Queal…