like rule in Oklahoma

1996Ex parte Crump, 135 P. 428 , 436 (Okla.Crim.App. 1913) (emphasis added). ¶ 10 The Crump court's analysis is that the power of an executive office can only be exercised within the office's geographic jurisdiction; thus, once the Governor removed himself from the State's geographic boundaries, he lost the ability to exercise the powers of office. ¶ 11 Applying a like analysis to the provisions of 19 O.S. 180.81 (B), we conclude that when a County Commissioner absents himself from the county, the functions of the Office of County Commissioner devolve upon the duly-designated Chief Deputy County C

1968Avis v. Hopping, 184 Okl. 527 , 88 P.2d 622, 625 ; 31A C.J.S.

1968Avis v. Hopping, 184 Okl. 527 , 88 P.2d 622, 625 ; 31A C.J.S.

1953Where the father has voluntarily executed an instrument in the presence of witnesses which purports to be a will in which he acknowledges that he is the father of said child and makes provisions for such child from his estate * * * if such will contains language which directly, unequivocally and unquestionably refers to said child as being of his blood and related to him naturally, such acknowledgment is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute.” A like rule with reference to witnessed written instruments generally, was reiterated in Ridgeway v. Logan, 205 Okl. 603 , 239 P.2d 778

1953Where the father has voluntarily executed an instrument in the presence of witnesses which purports to be a will in which he acknowledges that he is the father of said child and makes provisions for such child from his estate * * * if such will contains language which directly, unequivocally and unquestionably refers to said child as being of his blood and related to him naturally, such acknowledgment is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute.” A like rule with reference to witnessed written instruments generally, was reiterated in Ridgeway v. Logan, 205 Okl. 603 , 239 P.2d 778

1953The writing in the case of Holloway v. McCormick, 41 Okl. 1 , 136 P. 1111 , 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 536, cited by plaintiffs, is altogether different from the instrument in this case and the holding there is not in point.

1953The writing in the case of Holloway v. McCormick, 41 Okl. 1 , 136 P. 1111 , 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 536, cited by plaintiffs, is altogether different from the instrument in this case and the holding there is not in point.

1950Cr. 81 , 185 P. 2d 239, 240 , it was said: “Where the brief of the defendant presents assignments of error supported by ample legal authority and no ansAver brief contesting the contentions of defendant is filed on behalf of the state, this court indulges the presumption that-the state is unable to find authorities to dispute the proposition of law presented on behalf of the accused.” Herein Ave can only indulge a like presumption.

1942In the case of Armstrong v. Denver Saunders System Co., 84 Colo. 138 , 268 P. 976 , the question presented was whether of not the plaintiffs were subject to a license fee levied against the operators of “motor vehicles used in the transportation of passengers for hire operated upon the public highways of this state.” Therein it was said: “The complaint shows that plaintiffs keep automobiles for rent to persons who themselves drive them, and these are the cars which the defendant seeks to charge with this additional tax or license fee.

1942In the case of Armstrong v. Denver Saunders System Co., 84 Colo. 138 , 268 P. 976 , the question presented was whether of not the plaintiffs were subject to a license fee levied against the operators of “motor vehicles used in the transportation of passengers for hire operated upon the public highways of this state.” Therein it was said: “The complaint shows that plaintiffs keep automobiles for rent to persons who themselves drive them, and these are the cars which the defendant seeks to charge with this additional tax or license fee.

1942No court, in so far as we are aware, has ever held such a keeper to be a common carrier of passengers, and we think a like rule must apply to the defendants in this instance.” The above-quoted authorities were cited and approved in the case of Roeske v. Lamb, 39 N. M. 111, 41 P. 2d 522 , wherein the court was called upon to construe an act “Relating to the Supervision and Regulation of the Business of the Transportation by Motor Vehicles for Hire Over the Public Highways of the State of New Mexico.” It was pointed out that such act had for its purpose the regulation of carriers; that a carrier

1936In that case it was said: “The execution of the note in suit and its indorsement by the defendant as alleged in the petition, not having been denied under oath, were admitted facts.” The defendant in error contends, under the authority of the case of Barnett v. Tabor, 154 Okla. 20 , 6 P. (2d) 787 (and other Oklahoma cases following ,a like rule), which case holds in the second paragraph of the syllabus as follows: “When a motion for judgment rests upon the insufficiency of a pleading, £he party against whom the motion is leveled should be given the opportunity to amend after the court has anno

1936In that case it was said: “The execution of the note in suit and its indorsement by the defendant as alleged in the petition, not having been denied under oath, were admitted facts.” The defendant in error contends, under the authority of the case of Barnett v. Tabor, 154 Okla. 20 , 6 P. (2d) 787 (and other Oklahoma cases following ,a like rule), which case holds in the second paragraph of the syllabus as follows: “When a motion for judgment rests upon the insufficiency of a pleading, £he party against whom the motion is leveled should be given the opportunity to amend after the court has anno

1935Moomaw et al. v. Sions, 96 Okla. 202 , 220 P. 865 .

1935Moomaw et al. v. Sions, 96 Okla. 202 , 220 P. 865 .

1932Holland v. Beaver, 29 Okla. 115 , 116 P. 766 ; Reynolds v. Phipps, 31 Okla. 788 , 123 P. 1125 ; Rhome Mill.

1932Holland v. Beaver, 29 Okla. 115 , 116 P. 766 ; Reynolds v. Phipps, 31 Okla. 788 , 123 P. 1125 ; Rhome Mill.

1932Holland v. Beaver, 29 Okla. 115 , 116 P. 766 ; Reynolds v. Phipps, 31 Okla. 788 , 123 P. 1125 ; Rhome Mill.

1932Holland v. Beaver, 29 Okla. 115 , 116 P. 766 ; Reynolds v. Phipps, 31 Okla. 788 , 123 P. 1125 ; Rhome Mill.

1926The language is so similar in effect that it seems a like rule should apply to the language of section 837, supra. In Tefft v. Citizens Bank, 36 Kan. 457 , 13 Pac. 783 , the application for revivor was filed two days before the year expired, and notice given on the same day that the application would be presented 28 days after the year had elapsed.

1914Each must use such reasonable care as is adapted to the time, place, and circumstances under which the right is to be exercised and the duty performed.” In Orme et ux. v. City of Richmond, 79 Va. 86 , the city had lowered the grade of a street leaving a precipice of eight feet at the intersection of two streets where there was an old and constantly used pathway over adjoining lots entering into those streets.

1913If the immediate actor is free from responsibility because his act was lawful, can his employer, one taking no direct part in the transaction, he held responsible? * * * If an act of an employee be lawful, and one which he is qualified in doing and which casts no personal responsibility upon him, no responsibility attaches to the employer therefor.” This opinion was followed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Stratton's Independence, 158 Fed. 63 , 85 C.

1911When he invoked the action of the circuit court, he thereby absented that the court might render judgment for him or against him, as the evidence should warrant.” A like rule was adopted under a similar statute in Dunn v. Haines, 17 Neb. 560 , 23 N. W. 501 .

1907The supreme court of Kansas, in passing on a like exception taken to a number of interrogatories, in the Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. Shanks, 69 Kan. 306 , 76 Pac. 856 , say: “The defendant also asked the court to submit to the jury forty-five questions.

1907The supreme court of Kansas, in passing on a like exception taken to a number of interrogatories, in the Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. Shanks, 69 Kan. 306 , 76 Pac. 856 , say: “The defendant also asked the court to submit to the jury forty-five questions.