contention of plaintiff error in Oklahoma

1936As sustaining their contention they cite a number of authorities, including Elwood Oil & Gas Co. v. Gano, 76 Okla. 287 , 185 P. 443 , and Hassen v. Rogers, 123 Okla. 265 , 253 P. 72 .

1936As sustaining their contention they cite a number of authorities, including Elwood Oil & Gas Co. v. Gano, 76 Okla. 287 , 185 P. 443 , and Hassen v. Rogers, 123 Okla. 265 , 253 P. 72 .

1936As sustaining their contention they cite a number of authorities, including Elwood Oil & Gas Co. v. Gano, 76 Okla. 287 , 185 P. 443 , and Hassen v. Rogers, 123 Okla. 265 , 253 P. 72 .

1936As sustaining their contention they cite a number of authorities, including Elwood Oil & Gas Co. v. Gano, 76 Okla. 287 , 185 P. 443 , and Hassen v. Rogers, 123 Okla. 265 , 253 P. 72 .

1929Ambrister et al., in an opinion by this court filed on the 17th day of April, 1928, 137 Okla. 227 , 278 Pac. 653 , following the rule announced in No. 18265, Levina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank, 137 Okla. 265 , 278 Pac. 648 .

1929Ambrister et al., in an opinion by this court filed on the 17th day of April, 1928, 137 Okla. 227 , 278 Pac. 653 , following the rule announced in No. 18265, Levina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank, 137 Okla. 265 , 278 Pac. 648 .

1929Ambrister et al., in an opinion by this court filed on the 17th day of April, 1928, 137 Okla. 227 , 278 Pac. 653 , following the rule announced in No. 18265, Levina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank, 137 Okla. 265 , 278 Pac. 648 .

1929Ambrister et al., in an opinion by this court filed on the 17th day of April, 1928, 137 Okla. 227 , 278 Pac. 653 , following the rule announced in No. 18265, Levina Cooper, nee Perry, v. Spiro State Bank, 137 Okla. 265 , 278 Pac. 648 .

1928Co. v. Henry A. Marsh, ante. 125 Pac. 1094 , and under consideration and decided this question adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error.

1912Co. v. Henry A. Marsh, ante, 125 Pac. 1094 , had under consideration and decided this question adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error.

1915If the service of notice had complied with the statute, then, under the decision in Re Impunnubbee's Estate, 49 Okla. 161 , 152 P. 346 , by Chief Justice Kane, the contention of plaintiff in error would be upheld by us here, because all the evidence introduced by defendant in error upon the merits of the contest was evidence of facts that took place at the time and prior to the execution of the will in controversy, and the main witnesses to these facts were the contestants themselves and near relatives, showing that the facts urged against the competency of the maker of the will were within th

1915If the service of notice had complied with the statute, then, under the decision in Re Impunnubbee's Estate, 49 Okla. 161 , 152 P. 346 , by Chief Justice Kane, the contention of plaintiff in error would be upheld by us here, because all the evidence introduced by defendant in error upon the merits of the contest was evidence of facts that took place at the time and prior to the execution of the will in controversy, and the main witnesses to these facts were the contestants themselves and near relatives, showing that the facts urged against the competency of the maker of the will were within th

1960Heffner v. Heffner, 23 Pa. 104 ; Thomas v. Thomas, 124 Pa. 646 , 17 A. 182 ; * * The contention of plaintiff in error as to the invalidity of the marriage of Thelma Busch would be a determining factor as to her inheritance of the estate, therefore, the validity of her marriage is pertinent in the probate proceedings, and it follows that both the county court and the district court committed error, in denying jurisdiction of the matter.

1960Heffner v. Heffner, 23 Pa. 104 ; Thomas v. Thomas, 124 Pa. 646 , 17 A. 182 ; * * The contention of plaintiff in error as to the invalidity of the marriage of Thelma Busch would be a determining factor as to her inheritance of the estate, therefore, the validity of her marriage is pertinent in the probate proceedings, and it follows that both the county court and the district court committed error, in denying jurisdiction of the matter.

1960Heffner v. Heffner, 23 Pa. 104 ; Thomas v. Thomas, 124 Pa. 646 , 17 A. 182 ; * * The contention of plaintiff in error as to the invalidity of the marriage of Thelma Busch would be a determining factor as to her inheritance of the estate, therefore, the validity of her marriage is pertinent in the probate proceedings, and it follows that both the county court and the district court committed error, in denying jurisdiction of the matter.

1942App. 590 ; 144 Ill. 588 ; 180 Ill. 592 , 54 N. E. 604 , and 180 Ill. 481 , 54 N. E. 587 , tends to support the contention of plaintiff in error.

1942App. 590 ; 144 Ill. 588 ; 180 Ill. 592 , 54 N. E. 604 , and 180 Ill. 481 , 54 N. E. 587 , tends to support the contention of plaintiff in error.

1942App. 590 ; 144 Ill. 588 ; 180 Ill. 592 , 54 N. E. 604 , and 180 Ill. 481 , 54 N. E. 587 , tends to support the contention of plaintiff in error.

1942App. 590 ; 144 Ill. 588 ; 180 Ill. 592 , 54 N. E. 604 , and 180 Ill. 481 , 54 N. E. 587 , tends to support the contention of plaintiff in error.

1940Fielder v. Fielder, 47 Okla. 66 , 147 P. 769 ; Nero v. Brooks et al., 116 Okla. 279 , 244 P. 588 ; Winters v. Birch, 169 Okla. 237 , 36 P. 2d 907 .

1940Fielder v. Fielder, 47 Okla. 66 , 147 P. 769 ; Nero v. Brooks et al., 116 Okla. 279 , 244 P. 588 ; Winters v. Birch, 169 Okla. 237 , 36 P. 2d 907 .

1940Fielder v. Fielder, 47 Okla. 66 , 147 P. 769 ; Nero v. Brooks et al., 116 Okla. 279 , 244 P. 588 ; Winters v. Birch, 169 Okla. 237 , 36 P. 2d 907 .

1940Fielder v. Fielder, 47 Okla. 66 , 147 P. 769 ; Nero v. Brooks et al., 116 Okla. 279 , 244 P. 588 ; Winters v. Birch, 169 Okla. 237 , 36 P. 2d 907 .

1940Fielder v. Fielder, 47 Okla. 66 , 147 P. 769 ; Nero v. Brooks et al., 116 Okla. 279 , 244 P. 588 ; Winters v. Birch, 169 Okla. 237 , 36 P. 2d 907 .

1940Fielder v. Fielder, 47 Okla. 66 , 147 P. 769 ; Nero v. Brooks et al., 116 Okla. 279 , 244 P. 588 ; Winters v. Birch, 169 Okla. 237 , 36 P. 2d 907 .

1938The question appears. to be settled in this juris *415 diction in Re American Bank & Trust Co. of Ardmore, 176 Okla. 202 , 55 P.2d 470 .

1938The question appears. to be settled in this juris *415 diction in Re American Bank & Trust Co. of Ardmore, 176 Okla. 202 , 55 P.2d 470 .

1936In support of this contention plaintiff in error cites Swift v. McMurray, 133 Okla. 104 , 271 P. 635 , in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus of which this court said: “It is reversible error for the court, in its instructions, to invade the province of a jury, assume a controverted fact as proved or treat it as a question of law, and withhold the same from the determination of the jury.” Kershaw v. Reynolds. 124 Okla. 174 , 254 P. 713 , is a case where the facts are quite similar to the facts in the'instant case, and in the second paragraph of the syllabus we used the following language: “The

1936In support of this contention plaintiff in error cites Swift v. McMurray, 133 Okla. 104 , 271 P. 635 , in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus of which this court said: “It is reversible error for the court, in its instructions, to invade the province of a jury, assume a controverted fact as proved or treat it as a question of law, and withhold the same from the determination of the jury.” Kershaw v. Reynolds. 124 Okla. 174 , 254 P. 713 , is a case where the facts are quite similar to the facts in the'instant case, and in the second paragraph of the syllabus we used the following language: “The

1936Alcorn v. Dennis, 25 Okla. 135 , 105 P. 1012 .” Again, in Evans v. Burleson, 127 Okla. 290 , 260 P. 743 , it was held: “Where a contract is ma'de by one partner for the firm and it is shown on its face to be a firm transaction, all partners must join in the action thereon; but where there is no mention of a partnership in the pleadings and where the testimony is oral and conflicting as to whether the action is for the use and benefit of the plaintiff or for the partnership, the general finding of the court on all questions of doubtful and disputed facts is binding upon this court, where there

1936Alcorn v. Dennis, 25 Okla. 135 , 105 P. 1012 .” Again, in Evans v. Burleson, 127 Okla. 290 , 260 P. 743 , it was held: “Where a contract is ma'de by one partner for the firm and it is shown on its face to be a firm transaction, all partners must join in the action thereon; but where there is no mention of a partnership in the pleadings and where the testimony is oral and conflicting as to whether the action is for the use and benefit of the plaintiff or for the partnership, the general finding of the court on all questions of doubtful and disputed facts is binding upon this court, where there

1936Bk. & Trust Co. v. Bonaparte, Co. Treas., 174 Okla. 315 , 50 P. (2d) 407 , Bonaparte. *101 Co. Treas., v. Walker, and Bonaparte, Co. Treas., v. Tradesmen’s Natl.

1936Bk. & Trust Co. v. Bonaparte, Co. Treas., 174 Okla. 315 , 50 P. (2d) 407 , Bonaparte. *101 Co. Treas., v. Walker, and Bonaparte, Co. Treas., v. Tradesmen’s Natl.

1936In support of this contention plaintiff in error cites Swift v. McMurray, 133 Okla. 104 , 271 P. 635 , in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus of which this court said: “It is reversible error for the court, in its instructions, to invade the province of a jury, assume a controverted fact as proved or treat it as a question of law, and withhold the same from the determination of the jury.” Kershaw v. Reynolds. 124 Okla. 174 , 254 P. 713 , is a case where the facts are quite similar to the facts in the'instant case, and in the second paragraph of the syllabus we used the following language: “The

1936In support of this contention plaintiff in error cites Swift v. McMurray, 133 Okla. 104 , 271 P. 635 , in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus of which this court said: “It is reversible error for the court, in its instructions, to invade the province of a jury, assume a controverted fact as proved or treat it as a question of law, and withhold the same from the determination of the jury.” Kershaw v. Reynolds. 124 Okla. 174 , 254 P. 713 , is a case where the facts are quite similar to the facts in the'instant case, and in the second paragraph of the syllabus we used the following language: “The

1936In support of this contention plaintiff in error cites Swift v. McMurray, 133 Okla. 104 , 271 P. 635 , in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus of which this court said: “It is reversible error for the court, in its instructions, to invade the province of a jury, assume a controverted fact as proved or treat it as a question of law, and withhold the same from the determination of the jury.” Kershaw v. Reynolds. 124 Okla. 174 , 254 P. 713 , is a case where the facts are quite similar to the facts in the'instant case, and in the second paragraph of the syllabus we used the following language: “The

1936In support of this contention plaintiff in error cites Swift v. McMurray, 133 Okla. 104 , 271 P. 635 , in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus of which this court said: “It is reversible error for the court, in its instructions, to invade the province of a jury, assume a controverted fact as proved or treat it as a question of law, and withhold the same from the determination of the jury.” Kershaw v. Reynolds. 124 Okla. 174 , 254 P. 713 , is a case where the facts are quite similar to the facts in the'instant case, and in the second paragraph of the syllabus we used the following language: “The

1936In support of this contention plaintiff in error cites Swift v. McMurray, 133 Okla. 104 , 271 P. 635 , in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus of which this court said: “It is reversible error for the court, in its instructions, to invade the province of a jury, assume a controverted fact as proved or treat it as a question of law, and withhold the same from the determination of the jury.” Kershaw v. Reynolds. 124 Okla. 174 , 254 P. 713 , is a case where the facts are quite similar to the facts in the'instant case, and in the second paragraph of the syllabus we used the following language: “The

1936In support of this contention plaintiff in error cites Swift v. McMurray, 133 Okla. 104 , 271 P. 635 , in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus of which this court said: “It is reversible error for the court, in its instructions, to invade the province of a jury, assume a controverted fact as proved or treat it as a question of law, and withhold the same from the determination of the jury.” Kershaw v. Reynolds. 124 Okla. 174 , 254 P. 713 , is a case where the facts are quite similar to the facts in the'instant case, and in the second paragraph of the syllabus we used the following language: “The

1936In support of this contention plaintiff in error cites Swift v. McMurray, 133 Okla. 104 , 271 P. 635 , in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus of which this court said: “It is reversible error for the court, in its instructions, to invade the province of a jury, assume a controverted fact as proved or treat it as a question of law, and withhold the same from the determination of the jury.” Kershaw v. Reynolds. 124 Okla. 174 , 254 P. 713 , is a case where the facts are quite similar to the facts in the'instant case, and in the second paragraph of the syllabus we used the following language: “The

1936Alcorn v. Dennis, 25 Okla. 135 , 105 P. 1012 .” Again, in Evans v. Burleson, 127 Okla. 290 , 260 P. 743 , it was held: “Where a contract is ma'de by one partner for the firm and it is shown on its face to be a firm transaction, all partners must join in the action thereon; but where there is no mention of a partnership in the pleadings and where the testimony is oral and conflicting as to whether the action is for the use and benefit of the plaintiff or for the partnership, the general finding of the court on all questions of doubtful and disputed facts is binding upon this court, where there

1936Alcorn v. Dennis, 25 Okla. 135 , 105 P. 1012 .” Again, in Evans v. Burleson, 127 Okla. 290 , 260 P. 743 , it was held: “Where a contract is ma'de by one partner for the firm and it is shown on its face to be a firm transaction, all partners must join in the action thereon; but where there is no mention of a partnership in the pleadings and where the testimony is oral and conflicting as to whether the action is for the use and benefit of the plaintiff or for the partnership, the general finding of the court on all questions of doubtful and disputed facts is binding upon this court, where there

1936All the questions as to the personal property taxes and the real property claimed as invalid because of the raise in the assessment in 1927 have been decided adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error in the cases of Keaton v. Bonaparte, Co. Treas., 174 Okla. 316 , 50 P. (2d) 404 , First Natl.

1936All the questions as to the personal property taxes and the real property claimed as invalid because of the raise in the assessment in 1927 have been decided adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error in the cases of Keaton v. Bonaparte, Co. Treas., 174 Okla. 316 , 50 P. (2d) 404 , First Natl.

1935On the other hand, it *572 is contended by the beneficiary under the policy that the $7 payment, when deposited with the insurance company, extended the same and kept it in force for a period of time in proportion to the full quarter that the $7 payment bears to the $16.06, the amount required to pay the full quarterly premium, or until September 6th, and that a full quarterly premium having been tendered before that time expired and held by the insurance company, the policy never lapsed, but was in force on September 20th, when the insured died.” Mr. Justice Phelps, who wrote the opinion, the

1935On the other hand, it *572 is contended by the beneficiary under the policy that the $7 payment, when deposited with the insurance company, extended the same and kept it in force for a period of time in proportion to the full quarter that the $7 payment bears to the $16.06, the amount required to pay the full quarterly premium, or until September 6th, and that a full quarterly premium having been tendered before that time expired and held by the insurance company, the policy never lapsed, but was in force on September 20th, when the insured died.” Mr. Justice Phelps, who wrote the opinion, the

1935Co. v. Oliver et al., 17 Okla. 589 , 87 P. 423 , it was held: “In a condemnation proceeding, where the landowner appeals from the award and the case is tried to a jury in the district court, it is not proper to permit the jury to he informed of the amount of the award made by the commissioners.” That question seems to be settled adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error.

1935Co. v. Oliver et al., 17 Okla. 589 , 87 P. 423 , it was held: “In a condemnation proceeding, where the landowner appeals from the award and the case is tried to a jury in the district court, it is not proper to permit the jury to he informed of the amount of the award made by the commissioners.” That question seems to be settled adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error.

1934In Delfelder v. Farmers State Bank of Riverton (Wyo.) 269 P. 418 , under a statute identical with ours, that court reaches the same conclusion as we reach here.

1934For injuries resulting from permanent cause, the .owner may recover in a single action his entire damages, to wit, that amount which represents the permanent depreciation of the realty in value in consequence of the injury.” And in Pulaski Oil Co. v. Edwards, 92 Okla. 56 , 217 P. 876 , where we said: “* * * in thg cage of permanent injuries to property, the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the property immediately prior to the injury and the diminished value thereafter. * * *” The contention of plaintiff in error. that the evidence of the defendant in error was insuffi

1934For injuries resulting from permanent cause, the .owner may recover in a single action his entire damages, to wit, that amount which represents the permanent depreciation of the realty in value in consequence of the injury.” And in Pulaski Oil Co. v. Edwards, 92 Okla. 56 , 217 P. 876 , where we said: “* * * in thg cage of permanent injuries to property, the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the property immediately prior to the injury and the diminished value thereafter. * * *” The contention of plaintiff in error. that the evidence of the defendant in error was insuffi

1934In Romero v. Hopewell (N. M.), 210 P. 231 , the contention of plaintiff in error is upheld, but an examination of that case discloses that it is based on an entirely different statute, and in the opinion reference is made to the fact that, the rule is different in several states, including Oklahoma.