upon principle in Oklahoma

1935Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 239 , 49 Am.

1915Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 239 , 49 Am.

1918Laws 1910, relating to the petition of the guardian to sell his ward's real estate, provides: "To obtain an order for such sale, the guardian must present to the county court of the county in which he was appointed guardian, a verified petition therefor, setting forth the condition of the estate of his ward, and the facts and circumstances on which the petition is founded, tending to show the necessity or expediency of a sale." In Sockey v. Winstock, 43 Okla. 758 , 144 P. 372 , it was said, referring to this section of the statute: "This statute requires that the petition set forth: (1) the co

1918Laws 1910, relating to the petition of the guardian to sell his ward's real estate, provides: "To obtain an order for such sale, the guardian must present to the county court of the county in which he was appointed guardian, a verified petition therefor, setting forth the condition of the estate of his ward, and the facts and circumstances on which the petition is founded, tending to show the necessity or expediency of a sale." In Sockey v. Winstock, 43 Okla. 758 , 144 P. 372 , it was said, referring to this section of the statute: "This statute requires that the petition set forth: (1) the co

1912In the case of Cochran v. State, 4 Okla.

1911In the case of Cochran v. State, 4 Okla.

2015Co. v. Bond, 1917 OK 96 , 65 Okla. 224 , 165 P. 414, 418 , quoting Ballard v. Nye, 138 Cal. 588, 596 , 72 P. 156, 159 , (1903) (discussing the concept of facts putting a principal upon inquiry). 33 .

2015Co. v. Bond , 1917 OK 96, 165 P. 414, 418, quoting Ballard v. Nye , 138 Cal. 596, 72 Pac. 159, (1903) (discussing the concept of facts putting a principal upon inquiry). 33 We note that at one point in the proceeding Knight was expressly questioned by a member of the trial panel whether his claim of a lacking intention to violate an ethical rule was a defense by him to the Bar's claim he violated an ethical rule or if it was merely put forward by him for the purpose of mitigating discipline.

2015Co. v. Bond , 1917 OK 96 , 165 P. 414, 418 , quoting Ballard v. Nye , 138 Cal. 596 , 72 Pac. 159 , (1903) (discussing the concept of facts putting a principal upon inquiry). 33 We note that at one point in the proceeding Knight was expressly questioned by a member of the trial panel whether his claim of a lacking intention to violate an ethical rule was a defense by him to the Bar's claim he violated an ethical rule or if it was merely put forward by him for the purpose of mitigating discipline.

2015Co. v. Bond, 1917 OK 96 , 65 Okla. 224 , 165 P. 414, 418 , quoting Ballard v. Nye, 138 Cal. 588, 596 , 72 P. 156, 159 , (1903) (discussing the concept of facts putting a principal upon inquiry). 33 .

2012Although Atkins did not set forth a specific definition of mental retardation, Atkins noted that mental retardation is typically used to describe people with an IQ level of 50-55 to approximately 70." Atkins, 536 U.S. at 317 , 309 n. 3, 122 S.Ct. at 2250 , 2245 n. 8. (citation and quotations omitted). "[Aln IQ between 70 and 75 or lower, [ ] is typically considered the cutoff IQ score for the intellectual function prong of the mental retardation definition." Id., 536 U.S. at 309 n. 5, 122 S.Ct. at 2245 n. 5 (citation omitted).

2012Although Atkins did not set forth a specific definition of mental retardation, Atkins noted that mental retardation is typically used to describe people with an IQ level of 50-55 to approximately 70." Atkins, 536 U.S. at 317 , 309 n. 3, 122 S.Ct. at 2250 , 2245 n. 8. (citation and quotations omitted). "[Aln IQ between 70 and 75 or lower, [ ] is typically considered the cutoff IQ score for the intellectual function prong of the mental retardation definition." Id., 536 U.S. at 309 n. 5, 122 S.Ct. at 2245 n. 5 (citation omitted).

1973A trial by jury was waived and the cause tried by the court. *275 In Rain v. Balph, Okl., 293 P.2d 359 , we held that it is for the jury, or the trial court upon waiver of a jury, to determine the credibility of the various witnesses, and the weight and value to he given to their testimony.

1970In Wallace v. Smith, 205 Okl. 557 , 240 P.2d 799 , this court said that in an action, tried to the court upon waiver of a jury, a finding for plaintiff upon issues of fact is of the same effect as a verdict of properly instructed jury, and will not be disturbed on appeal, if there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the same.

1970In Wallace v. Smith, 205 Okl. 557 , 240 P.2d 799 , this court said that in an action, tried to the court upon waiver of a jury, a finding for plaintiff upon issues of fact is of the same effect as a verdict of properly instructed jury, and will not be disturbed on appeal, if there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the same.

1968While the record does not affirmatively reveal any ruling by the trial court upon defense counsel’s hereinbefore mentioned request that such a verdict form be furnished the jury (see Myers v. Diehl, Okl., 365 P.2d 717, 722 , citing In re Cully’s Estate, Okl., 276 P.2d 250 ), the record does reveal that the case was submitted to the jury under instructions which properly (since the surety is in no better position than his principal, Lierly v. Motor Mtg.

1968While the record does not affirmatively reveal any ruling by the trial court upon defense counsel’s hereinbefore mentioned request that such a verdict form be furnished the jury (see Myers v. Diehl, Okl., 365 P.2d 717, 722 , citing In re Cully’s Estate, Okl., 276 P.2d 250 ), the record does reveal that the case was submitted to the jury under instructions which properly (since the surety is in no better position than his principal, Lierly v. Motor Mtg.

1935“All presumptions are in favor of the validity of judgments of courts of general jurisdiction.” Thomason v. Thompson, 123 Okla. 218 , 253 P. 99 .

1935“All presumptions are in favor of the validity of judgments of courts of general jurisdiction.” Thomason v. Thompson, 123 Okla. 218 , 253 P. 99 .

1929The cases so announcing the rule will be found collected in the case of Besoloff v. Whatcom County, 133 Wash. 109 , 233 Pac. 284 , and need no further reference.

1929The cases so announcing the rule will be found collected in the case of Besoloff v. Whatcom County, 133 Wash. 109 , 233 Pac. 284 , and need no further reference.

1929L. 701; 9 Cyc. 550; * * * Flynn Const. Co. v. Leininger, 125 Okla. 197 , 257 Pac. 374 .” That theory is noit common to Oklahoma, but is well expressed by the Supreme Court of Washington in the case of Strong & McDonald, Inc., v. King Co., 267 Pae. 436, wherein that court said: “In a number of instances where such a contract has been entered into which proved invalid only because of want of legal formality in its execution, and the work performed inured to the benefit of the municipality, we have held that the municipality was liable for the reasonable value of the work; this upon the principle

1929L. 701; 9 Cyc. 550; * * * Flynn Const. Co. v. Leininger, 125 Okla. 197 , 257 Pac. 374 .” That theory is noit common to Oklahoma, but is well expressed by the Supreme Court of Washington in the case of Strong & McDonald, Inc., v. King Co., 267 Pae. 436, wherein that court said: “In a number of instances where such a contract has been entered into which proved invalid only because of want of legal formality in its execution, and the work performed inured to the benefit of the municipality, we have held that the municipality was liable for the reasonable value of the work; this upon the principle

1928This is upon the principle that courts will not lend their assistance to effectuate fraudulent or unlawful practices of suitors (Holker v. Hennessey, 141 Mo. 527 ; * * * or, as otherwise stated, no one should be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong, and no lawful thing can stand on an unlawful foundation.

1928Rood on Attachment, see. 186, citing Holker v. Hennessey, supra. So where one came into possession of goods of another in one state fraudulently, or as a trespasser, and took them into another state without the consent of the owner, in order that a writ of attachment in that state could be levied upon them, it was held that the levy conferred no jurisdiction, and was void.

1928We here quote the prayer contained in the guardian’s petition to sell the land, which is as follows: “Wherefore, petitioner prays that the court upon hearing had herein be authorized to sell the N. E. ¼ of N. E. ¼ of sec. 22, T. 2 S. R. 1 E.. and the S., ½ of N. E. ¼ of S. E. ¼, and the N. W. ¼ of N. E. ¼ of S. E. ¼ of sec. 22, T. 2 S., it, 1 E. and the N. E. ¼ of N. W. ¼ of N. W. ¼ of sec. 9 T., 4 S., R. 3 W., at public or private sale, as shall be deemed most beneficial and for the best interest of said wards.” It could hardly be contended that an un educated freedman, who could neither read

1925Co. v. Cole, 46 Okla. 753 , 149 Pac. 861 , and other cases cited in the opinion, and the eases of Clark v. St.

1925Co. v. Cole, 46 Okla. 753 , 149 Pac. 861 , and other cases cited in the opinion, and the eases of Clark v. St.

1925This last mentioned case was commented upon in the case of Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Tanner, 93 Okla. 284 , 220 Pac. 655 , which case' is among the last pronouncements of this court upon the principle of the last clear chance, as applied to street railways, and attorneys for plaintiff, in their brief, cite many cases in support of the instruction complained of in this case, but, in our opinion, it is unnecessary to go further than the ease of Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Tanner, supra, where this court upheld an instruction given by the trial court upon the doctrine of the last cl

1925This last mentioned case was commented upon in the case of Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Tanner, 93 Okla. 284 , 220 Pac. 655 , which case' is among the last pronouncements of this court upon the principle of the last clear chance, as applied to street railways, and attorneys for plaintiff, in their brief, cite many cases in support of the instruction complained of in this case, but, in our opinion, it is unnecessary to go further than the ease of Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Tanner, supra, where this court upheld an instruction given by the trial court upon the doctrine of the last cl

1916Daniels v. Tearney, 11 Reporter, 113 [ 102 U. S. 415 , 26 L.

1916Daniels v. Tearney, 11 Reporter, 113 [ 102 U. S. 415 , 26 L.

1915Colbert v. State, 4 Okla.

1913In this case the issue to be determined was whether or not the attachment had been levied on exempt property, and this had to be determined from the evidence in support of, or opposed to, the motion, and the court upon the hearing of the motion was -not required to inquire into the merits of the action. 4 Cyc. 795; Doggett v. Bell, 32 Kan. 298 , 4 Pac. 292; Bundrem v. Denn, 25 Kan. 430 ; Rullman v. Hulse, 33 Kan. 672 , 7 Pac. 210 .

1913In this case the issue to be determined was whether or not the attachment had been levied on exempt property, and this had to be determined from the evidence in support of, or opposed to, the motion, and the court upon the hearing of the motion was -not required to inquire into the merits of the action. 4 Cyc. 795; Doggett v. Bell, 32 Kan. 298 , 4 Pac. 292; Bundrem v. Denn, 25 Kan. 430 ; Rullman v. Hulse, 33 Kan. 672 , 7 Pac. 210 .

1913In this case the issue to be determined was whether or not the attachment had been levied on exempt property, and this had to be determined from the evidence in support of, or opposed to, the motion, and the court upon the hearing of the motion was -not required to inquire into the merits of the action. 4 Cyc. 795; Doggett v. Bell, 32 Kan. 298 , 4 Pac. 292; Bundrem v. Denn, 25 Kan. 430 ; Rullman v. Hulse, 33 Kan. 672 , 7 Pac. 210 .

1912“Checks are but inland bills of exchange, and subject to all. the rules applicable to instruments of that character, and impose no obligation upon the drawees until accepted, and, until presented and paid, are revocable by the drawer, who has the legal control of the moneys to his credit until actual acceptance or payment of the checks, and this upon the principle that the contract and obligation of the banker is to and with the depositor, and not the holders of his checks.” (Aetna National Bank v. Fourth National Bank of New York, 46 N. Y. 82 , 7 Am.

1909In Johnson v. Grissard, 51 Ark. 410 , 11 S. W. 585 , 3 L.

1909Tn the presentation of this case counsel for plaintiffs in error have relied with emphasis upon the following cases as being in point and as supporting their contention: State v. Marston, 6 Kan. 524 ; State v. Stevens, 23 Kan. 456 ; People v. State Board of Canvassers, 129 N. Y. 360 , 29 N E. 345, 14 L.

1909Tn the presentation of this case counsel for plaintiffs in error have relied with emphasis upon the following cases as being in point and as supporting their contention: State v. Marston, 6 Kan. 524 ; State v. Stevens, 23 Kan. 456 ; People v. State Board of Canvassers, 129 N. Y. 360 , 29 N E. 345, 14 L.

1909Tn the presentation of this case counsel for plaintiffs in error have relied with emphasis upon the following cases as being in point and as supporting their contention: State v. Marston, 6 Kan. 524 ; State v. Stevens, 23 Kan. 456 ; People v. State Board of Canvassers, 129 N. Y. 360 , 29 N E. 345, 14 L.