syllabus announces rule in Oklahoma

1964In City of Drumright, supra, we stated: "In Long Construction Co. v. Fournier, 190 Okl. 361 , 123 P.2d 689 , we approved the rule of nonliability announced in Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol. 2, sec. 343, and held that a possessor of real estate was liable to an invitee injured on the premises `if but only if, he has no reason to believe that the person injured will discover the condition or realize the risk involved.'" And, the syllabus announces the rule: "The duty of an owner or occupant of premises to keep them safe for invitees extends only to defects or conditions which are in the n

1964In City of Drumright, supra, we stated: "In Long Construction Co. v. Fournier, 190 Okl. 361 , 123 P.2d 689 , we approved the rule of nonliability announced in Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol. 2, sec. 343, and held that a possessor of real estate was liable to an invitee injured on the premises `if but only if, he has no reason to believe that the person injured will discover the condition or realize the risk involved.'" And, the syllabus announces the rule: "The duty of an owner or occupant of premises to keep them safe for invitees extends only to defects or conditions which are in the n

1924In the case of Holland Banking Co. v. Dicks, 67 Okla. 228 , 170 Pac. 253 , the court held that the attorney’s fee wou’d not be allowed without the introduction of testimony, and the fifth paragraph of the syllabus announces this rule: an action is brought upon a prom *163 issory note for the foreclosure of a lien upon collateral given to secure the payment of said note an attorney’s fee under section 3877, R.

1924In the case of Holland Banking Co. v. Dicks, 67 Okla. 228 , 170 Pac. 253 , the court held that the attorney’s fee wou’d not be allowed without the introduction of testimony, and the fifth paragraph of the syllabus announces this rule: an action is brought upon a prom *163 issory note for the foreclosure of a lien upon collateral given to secure the payment of said note an attorney’s fee under section 3877, R.

1921Co. (Kan.) 139 Pac. 357 , the syllabus announces the rule that the equitable lien for labor or material is superior to the mortgage under the facts in that case; and, discussing the case in .the body of the opinion, the court stated its reasons as follows: “The trust company undertook to finance a projected railroad on the express agreement that the funds were to be advanced and used as the construction progressed and it was to have a first lien on the completed line which it was contemplated should be paid for out of the funds advanced.

1920The court in the opinion of the majority cites the case of First Trust & Savings Bank v. Bloodworth, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 545 , *247 and while the syllabus announces the rule laid down by this court, the facts are altogether different, and there was equity in that. ease, for the party there not only obtained a judgment against the agent for the money, but the money had been garnished in a prior action in the agent’s hands and the plaintiffs had inter-pleaded in said garnishment and claimed the money.

1917The rule is stated’ in 14 Ency. of Ev. 121, as follows: “While the fact that the jury are, the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses is universally-recognized (and they are not bound by the me’re swearing of witnesses), it is equally well estabished that they will not be allowed to capriciously disregard the unimpeached and uncontrndicted testimony of the witnesses.” In Moore et al. v. Leigh-Head & Co., 48 Okla. 228 , 149 Pac. 1129 , the fifth paragraph of the syllabus announces the rule as follow's : " “Where the evidence introduced by the plaintiffs makes out the plaintiffs’ ease,

1917The rule is stated’ in 14 Ency. of Ev. 121, as follows: “While the fact that the jury are, the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses is universally-recognized (and they are not bound by the me’re swearing of witnesses), it is equally well estabished that they will not be allowed to capriciously disregard the unimpeached and uncontrndicted testimony of the witnesses.” In Moore et al. v. Leigh-Head & Co., 48 Okla. 228 , 149 Pac. 1129 , the fifth paragraph of the syllabus announces the rule as follow's : " “Where the evidence introduced by the plaintiffs makes out the plaintiffs’ ease,

1917The rule is stated’ in 14 Ency. of Ev. 121, as follows: “While the fact that the jury are, the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses is universally-recognized (and they are not bound by the me’re swearing of witnesses), it is equally well estabished that they will not be allowed to capriciously disregard the unimpeached and uncontrndicted testimony of the witnesses.” In Moore et al. v. Leigh-Head & Co., 48 Okla. 228 , 149 Pac. 1129 , the fifth paragraph of the syllabus announces the rule as follow's : " “Where the evidence introduced by the plaintiffs makes out the plaintiffs’ ease,

1917The rule is stated’ in 14 Ency. of Ev. 121, as follows: “While the fact that the jury are, the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses is universally-recognized (and they are not bound by the me’re swearing of witnesses), it is equally well estabished that they will not be allowed to capriciously disregard the unimpeached and uncontrndicted testimony of the witnesses.” In Moore et al. v. Leigh-Head & Co., 48 Okla. 228 , 149 Pac. 1129 , the fifth paragraph of the syllabus announces the rule as follow's : " “Where the evidence introduced by the plaintiffs makes out the plaintiffs’ ease,