Kansas rule in Oklahoma

1952To enjoy the protection of the statute they must have been made in confidence of the relation and under such circumstances as to imply that they should ever remain secret." The Oklahoma statute on privileged communications between attorney and client, being subd. 4, sec. 385, 12 O.S. 1951 , was adopted from Kansas; and In re Wilkins' Estate (Hewitt v. Wilkins), 199 Okla. 249 , 185 P.2d 213 , followed the Kansas rule that an attorney who prepares a will may testify as to the facts and circumstances in connection with its preparation and execution in order to establish that the will expresses th

1952To enjoy the protection of the statute they must have been made in confidence of the relation and under such circumstances as to imply that they should ever remain secret." The Oklahoma statute on privileged communications between attorney and client, being subd. 4, sec. 385, 12 O.S. 1951 , was adopted from Kansas; and In re Wilkins' Estate (Hewitt v. Wilkins), 199 Okla. 249 , 185 P.2d 213 , followed the Kansas rule that an attorney who prepares a will may testify as to the facts and circumstances in connection with its preparation and execution in order to establish that the will expresses th

1952We are strengthened in this belief when we read the criticism of the Kansas construction, . . . announced in Hulbert v. City of Topeka, 34 Fed. 510 , by Judge Brewer, who was on the Kansas court at the time, and concurred in the McCarthy decision.” *21 The provision of the statute limiting the amount of recovery which was apparently one of the controlling reasons for the Kansas court adopting the McCarthy decision and holding the statute penal has been removed from the Oklahoma statute by amendment.

1952We are strengthened in this belief when we read the criticism of the Kansas construction, . . . announced in Hulbert v. City of Topeka, 34 Fed. 510 , by Judge Brewer, who was on the Kansas court at the time, and concurred in the McCarthy decision.” *21 The provision of the statute limiting the amount of recovery which was apparently one of the controlling reasons for the Kansas court adopting the McCarthy decision and holding the statute penal has been removed from the Oklahoma statute by amendment.

1940We adopted the Kansas rule in Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Bartlesville, 27 Okla. 214 , 111 P. 207 , and have adhered to the same since that time.

1940We adopted the Kansas rule in Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Bartlesville, 27 Okla. 214 , 111 P. 207 , and have adhered to the same since that time.

1940MacThwaite Oil & Gas Co. v. Bolen, 77 Okla. 155 , 187 P. 221 ; Burnett v. Sapulpa Refining Co., 59 Okla. 276 , 159 P. 360 .

1940MacThwaite Oil & Gas Co. v. Bolen, 77 Okla. 155 , 187 P. 221 ; Burnett v. Sapulpa Refining Co., 59 Okla. 276 , 159 P. 360 .

1940MacThwaite Oil & Gas Co. v. Bolen, 77 Okla. 155 , 187 P. 221 ; Burnett v. Sapulpa Refining Co., 59 Okla. 276 , 159 P. 360 .

1940MacThwaite Oil & Gas Co. v. Bolen, 77 Okla. 155 , 187 P. 221 ; Burnett v. Sapulpa Refining Co., 59 Okla. 276 , 159 P. 360 .

1937In addition to the above-cited cases, Manley v. Mayer (Kan.), Updegraff v. Lucas (Kan.), Moss v. Ramsey (Okla.), and Jones v. Nye (Okla.), which are contrary to the majority opinion, another decided case where a judgment was obtained by the administrator is the case of Brown v. Tutwiler, 61 Ala. 372 .

1937In addition to the above-cited cases, Manley v. Mayer (Kan.), Updegraff v. Lucas (Kan.), Moss v. Ramsey (Okla.), and Jones v. Nye (Okla.), which are contrary to the majority opinion, another decided case where a judgment was obtained by the administrator is the case of Brown v. Tutwiler, 61 Ala. 372 .

1925The Kansas statute, and the Oklahoma statute at the time of the Vandenberg decision, was as follows: “Any person who shall furnish any such material or perform such labor under a subcontractor with the contractor * * * may obtain a lien.* * *” In 1905 the Oklahoma statute on such liens was amended so as to give right of lien to a materialman furnishing materials to a subcontractor, and this court, in t!he Hoggson Bros. v. Dickason-Goodman Lumber Company Case, 81 Okla. 31 , 196 Pac. 686 , held that the Walton Lumber Company rule was no longer applicable.

1925The Kansas statute, and the Oklahoma statute at the time of the Vandenberg decision, was as follows: “Any person who shall furnish any such material or perform such labor under a subcontractor with the contractor * * * may obtain a lien.* * *” In 1905 the Oklahoma statute on such liens was amended so as to give right of lien to a materialman furnishing materials to a subcontractor, and this court, in t!he Hoggson Bros. v. Dickason-Goodman Lumber Company Case, 81 Okla. 31 , 196 Pac. 686 , held that the Walton Lumber Company rule was no longer applicable.

1916The practice in this state is now thoroughly committed to the Kansas rule on the question at bar as laid down in the case of Glaser et al. v. Glaser et al., supra, from which we take the following: “The eighth statutory cause for a new trial, * * * viz., ‘error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application,’ will, when embraced in a motion for a new trial, present to the trial court any objection or exception properly made and saved during the progress of the trial, and this includes exceptions to the giving of instructions to the jury; and an assignment of

1916The practice in this state is now thoroughly committed to the Kansas rule on the question at bar as laid down in the case of Glaser et al. v. Glaser et al., supra, from which we take the following: “The eighth statutory cause for a new trial, * * * viz., ‘error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application,’ will, when embraced in a motion for a new trial, present to the trial court any objection or exception properly made and saved during the progress of the trial, and this includes exceptions to the giving of instructions to the jury; and an assignment of

1916The practice in this state is now thoroughly committed to the Kansas rule on the question at bar as laid down in the case of Glaser et al. v. Glaser et al., supra, from which we take the following: “The eighth statutory cause for a new trial, * * * viz., ‘error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application,’ will, when embraced in a motion for a new trial, present to the trial court any objection or exception properly made and saved during the progress of the trial, and this includes exceptions to the giving of instructions to the jury; and an assignment of

1916The practice in this state is now thoroughly committed to the Kansas rule on the question at bar as laid down in the case of Glaser et al. v. Glaser et al., supra, from which we take the following: “The eighth statutory cause for a new trial, * * * viz., ‘error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application,’ will, when embraced in a motion for a new trial, present to the trial court any objection or exception properly made and saved during the progress of the trial, and this includes exceptions to the giving of instructions to the jury; and an assignment of

1916The practice in this state is now thoroughly committed to the Kansas rule on the question at bar as laid down in the case of Glaser et al. v. Glaser et al., supra, from which we take the following: “The eighth statutory cause for a new trial, * * * viz., ‘error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application,’ will, when embraced in a motion for a new trial, present to the trial court any objection or exception properly made and saved during the progress of the trial, and this includes exceptions to the giving of instructions to the jury; and an assignment of

1916The practice in this state is now thoroughly committed to the Kansas rule on the question at bar as laid down in the case of Glaser et al. v. Glaser et al., supra, from which we take the following: “The eighth statutory cause for a new trial, * * * viz., ‘error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application,’ will, when embraced in a motion for a new trial, present to the trial court any objection or exception properly made and saved during the progress of the trial, and this includes exceptions to the giving of instructions to the jury; and an assignment of

1916The practice in this state is now thoroughly committed to the Kansas rule on the question at bar as laid down in the case of Glaser et al. v. Glaser et al., supra, from which we take the following: “The eighth statutory cause for a new trial, * * * viz., ‘error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application,’ will, when embraced in a motion for a new trial, present to the trial court any objection or exception properly made and saved during the progress of the trial, and this includes exceptions to the giving of instructions to the jury; and an assignment of

1916The practice in this state is now thoroughly committed to the Kansas rule on the question at bar as laid down in the case of Glaser et al. v. Glaser et al., supra, from which we take the following: “The eighth statutory cause for a new trial, * * * viz., ‘error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application,’ will, when embraced in a motion for a new trial, present to the trial court any objection or exception properly made and saved during the progress of the trial, and this includes exceptions to the giving of instructions to the jury; and an assignment of

1915Co. v. Stoddard, 61 Kan. 640 , 60 Pac. 320 , which was rendered in March, 1900, and which referred to the case of K. & C.

1915Co. v. Stoddard, 61 Kan. 640 , 60 Pac. 320 , which was rendered in March, 1900, and which referred to the case of K. & C.

1915Co. v. Stoddard, 61 Kan. 640 , 60 Pac. 320 , which was rendered in March, 1900, and which referred to the case of K. & C.

1915Co. v. Stoddard, 61 Kan. 640 , 60 Pac. 320 , which was rendered in March, 1900, and which referred to the case of K. & C.

1912Indeed, with the examination we have made, it finds no support except in a few states that have express statutes permitting such liens, and in Louisiana, where the rule was announced in Mc *33 Knight v. Parish of Grant, 30 La.

1912Indeed, with the examination we have made, it finds no support except in a few states that have express statutes permitting such liens, and in Louisiana, where the rule was announced in Mc *33 Knight v. Parish of Grant, 30 La.

1911Thomas v. State, 97 Ala. 3 , 12 South. 409 ; Whart.

1911Thomas v. State, 97 Ala. 3 , 12 South. 409 ; Whart.

1911This seems to be the Kansas rule, as stated in State v. Fockler, 22 Kan. 542; but the better rule appears to be to lay the ownership in the one rightfully in possession, and prove the same as alleged.

1911This seems to be the Kansas rule, as stated in State v. Fockler, 22 Kan. 542; but the better rule appears to be to lay the ownership in the one rightfully in possession, and prove the same as alleged.

1903The doctrine was first announced by that court in the case of Graft v. Jackson Co. Commissioners, 5 Kan. 518 , which was an action by an inhabitant and taxpayer to restrain the county commissioners from issuing two county warrants, on the alleged grounds that the claims were illegal.