corollary rule in Oklahoma

1967Shintaffer v. Rorem, 167 Okl. 647 , 31 P.2d 559 ; In re Griffin’s Estate, 199 Okl. 676 , 189 P.2d 933 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 .

1967Shintaffer v. Rorem, 167 Okl. 647 , 31 P.2d 559 ; In re Griffin’s Estate, 199 Okl. 676 , 189 P.2d 933 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 .

2011Williams v. Wells Fargo & Express Co., 177 F. 352 (8th Cir.1910); Rosenberg v. Union Iron Works, 109 F. 844 (N.D.Calif.1901).

2011Williams v. Wells Fargo & Express Co., 177 F. 352 (8th Cir.1910); Rosenberg v. Union Iron Works, 109 F. 844 (N.D.Calif.1901).

1995Marino Indus., 686 F.2d at 115 .

1995Marino Indus., 686 F.2d at 115 .

1981Phelps v. Childers, supra; Bond v. Phelps, supra; Aubrey v. Huser, supra; Breeden v. Nigh, supra. The foregoing history merely assists in focusing the scope of your inquiry to the fundamental question posed: Are the duties imposed upon the Superintendent by the provisions of SB 401 foreign to or beyond the scope and range of and nongermane to the duties of the office so as to escape the language of Article XXIII, Section 10 and Article VI, Section 34?

1967Shintaffer v. Rorem, 167 Okl. 647 , 31 P.2d 559 ; In re Griffin’s Estate, 199 Okl. 676 , 189 P.2d 933 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 .

1967Shintaffer v. Rorem, 167 Okl. 647 , 31 P.2d 559 ; In re Griffin’s Estate, 199 Okl. 676 , 189 P.2d 933 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 .

1967Shintaffer v. Rorem, 167 Okl. 647 , 31 P.2d 559 ; In re Griffin’s Estate, 199 Okl. 676 , 189 P.2d 933 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 .

1967Shintaffer v. Rorem, 167 Okl. 647 , 31 P.2d 559 ; In re Griffin’s Estate, 199 Okl. 676 , 189 P.2d 933 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 .

1963“The corollary rule is equally well established that a junior mortgagee cannot assert a tax title against a senior mortgagee. 19 R.C.L. 398; Fair v. Brown, 40 Iowa 209 ; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 35 ; Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N.H. 22 ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Middletown Savings Bank v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513 .” It therefore seems that in jurisdictions which hold that a mortgagee, so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee exists, cannot acquire title to the mortgaged property as against the mortgagor in tax sale proceedings, also follow the rule that a junior mortgagee can

1963"The corollary rule is equally well established that a junior mortgagee cannot assert a tax title against a senior mortgagee. 19 R.C.L. 398; Fair v. Brown, 40 Iowa 209 ; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 35 ; Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N.H. 22 ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Middletown Savings Bank v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513 ." It therefore seems that in jurisdictions which hold that a mortgagee, so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee exists, cannot acquire title to the mortgaged property as against the mortgagor in tax sale proceedings, also follow the rule that a junior mortgagee can

1963“The corollary rule is equally well established that a junior mortgagee cannot assert a tax title against a senior mortgagee. 19 R.C.L. 398; Fair v. Brown, 40 Iowa 209 ; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 35 ; Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N.H. 22 ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Middletown Savings Bank v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513 .” It therefore seems that in jurisdictions which hold that a mortgagee, so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee exists, cannot acquire title to the mortgaged property as against the mortgagor in tax sale proceedings, also follow the rule that a junior mortgagee can

1963"The corollary rule is equally well established that a junior mortgagee cannot assert a tax title against a senior mortgagee. 19 R.C.L. 398; Fair v. Brown, 40 Iowa 209 ; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 35 ; Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N.H. 22 ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Middletown Savings Bank v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513 ." It therefore seems that in jurisdictions which hold that a mortgagee, so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee exists, cannot acquire title to the mortgaged property as against the mortgagor in tax sale proceedings, also follow the rule that a junior mortgagee can

1963“The corollary rule is equally well established that a junior mortgagee cannot assert a tax title against a senior mortgagee. 19 R.C.L. 398; Fair v. Brown, 40 Iowa 209 ; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 35 ; Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N.H. 22 ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Middletown Savings Bank v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513 .” It therefore seems that in jurisdictions which hold that a mortgagee, so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee exists, cannot acquire title to the mortgaged property as against the mortgagor in tax sale proceedings, also follow the rule that a junior mortgagee can

1963"The corollary rule is equally well established that a junior mortgagee cannot assert a tax title against a senior mortgagee. 19 R.C.L. 398; Fair v. Brown, 40 Iowa 209 ; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 35 ; Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N.H. 22 ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Middletown Savings Bank v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513 ." It therefore seems that in jurisdictions which hold that a mortgagee, so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee exists, cannot acquire title to the mortgaged property as against the mortgagor in tax sale proceedings, also follow the rule that a junior mortgagee can

1963“The corollary rule is equally well established that a junior mortgagee cannot assert a tax title against a senior mortgagee. 19 R.C.L. 398; Fair v. Brown, 40 Iowa 209 ; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 35 ; Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N.H. 22 ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Middletown Savings Bank v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513 .” It therefore seems that in jurisdictions which hold that a mortgagee, so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee exists, cannot acquire title to the mortgaged property as against the mortgagor in tax sale proceedings, also follow the rule that a junior mortgagee can

1963"The corollary rule is equally well established that a junior mortgagee cannot assert a tax title against a senior mortgagee. 19 R.C.L. 398; Fair v. Brown, 40 Iowa 209 ; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 35 ; Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N.H. 22 ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Middletown Savings Bank v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513 ." It therefore seems that in jurisdictions which hold that a mortgagee, so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee exists, cannot acquire title to the mortgaged property as against the mortgagor in tax sale proceedings, also follow the rule that a junior mortgagee can

1963“The corollary rule is equally well established that a junior mortgagee cannot assert a tax title against a senior mortgagee. 19 R.C.L. 398; Fair v. Brown, 40 Iowa 209 ; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 35 ; Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N.H. 22 ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Middletown Savings Bank v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513 .” It therefore seems that in jurisdictions which hold that a mortgagee, so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee exists, cannot acquire title to the mortgaged property as against the mortgagor in tax sale proceedings, also follow the rule that a junior mortgagee can

1963"The corollary rule is equally well established that a junior mortgagee cannot assert a tax title against a senior mortgagee. 19 R.C.L. 398; Fair v. Brown, 40 Iowa 209 ; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 35 ; Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N.H. 22 ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Middletown Savings Bank v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513 ." It therefore seems that in jurisdictions which hold that a mortgagee, so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee exists, cannot acquire title to the mortgaged property as against the mortgagor in tax sale proceedings, also follow the rule that a junior mortgagee can

1962Payne Drilling Co. v. Shoemake, 183 Okl. 10 , 79 P.2d 806 ; Standard Brands, Inc. v. Gregor, Okl., 328 P.2d 181, 183 .

1962Payne Drilling Co. v. Shoemake, 183 Okl. 10 , 79 P.2d 806 ; Standard Brands, Inc. v. Gregor, Okl., 328 P.2d 181, 183 .

1962Payne Drilling Co. v. Shoemake, 183 Okl. 10 , 79 P.2d 806 ; Standard Brands, Inc. v. Gregor, Okl., 328 P.2d 181, 183 .

1956It is enough that he introduce such evidence as, in the absence of all counter-testimony, will afford reasonable grounds for presuming that the allegation is true, and when it is done the onus probandi will be thrown on his adversary.” Brokeshoulder v. Brokeshoulder, 84 Okl. 249 , 204 P. 284 , 34 A.L.R. 441 .

1956It is enough that he introduce such evidence as, in the absence of all counter-testimony, will afford reasonable grounds for presuming that the allegation is true, and when it is done the onus probandi will be thrown on his adversary.” Brokeshoulder v. Brokeshoulder, 84 Okl. 249 , 204 P. 284 , 34 A.L.R. 441 .

1956It is enough that he introduce such evidence as, in the absence of all counter-testimony, will afford reasonable grounds for presuming that the allegation is true, and when it is done the onus probandi will be thrown on his adversary.” Brokeshoulder v. Brokeshoulder, 84 Okl. 249 , 204 P. 284 , 34 A.L.R. 441 .

1925As a corollary to this rule, where it is shown that plaintiff has suffered damages, ‘ but from the nature of the case they cannot be shown with reasonable certainty, only nominal damages are recoverable.” And in the case of Gourley v. Lookabaugh, 48 Okla. 65 , 149 Pac. 1169 . this court announced the following rule: “In an action for breach of contract, if proven, the plaintiff may recover nominal damages, even though no appreciable injury has been shown.” No cross-appeal was taken, hence the question of whether the contract was joint and several, or several only, is not before us.

1925As a corollary to this rule, where it is shown that plaintiff has suffered damages, ‘ but from the nature of the case they cannot be shown with reasonable certainty, only nominal damages are recoverable.” And in the case of Gourley v. Lookabaugh, 48 Okla. 65 , 149 Pac. 1169 . this court announced the following rule: “In an action for breach of contract, if proven, the plaintiff may recover nominal damages, even though no appreciable injury has been shown.” No cross-appeal was taken, hence the question of whether the contract was joint and several, or several only, is not before us.