statement of the general rule in Oklahoma

1980Bank of Chickasha, 174 Okl. 380 , 50 P.2d 734 (1935) is cited for the statement of the general rule relating to fraudulent procurement of process. [1] Personal *1325 service is void if it is obtained by inveigling or enticing the person to be served into the territorial jurisdiction of the court by means of fraud and deceit, actual or legal, or by trick or device.

1980Bank of Chickasha, 174 Okl. 380 , 50 P.2d 734 (1935) is cited for the statement of the general rule relating to fraudulent procurement of process. [1] Personal *1325 service is void if it is obtained by inveigling or enticing the person to be served into the territorial jurisdiction of the court by means of fraud and deceit, actual or legal, or by trick or device.

1959Co. v. Hughes, 180 Okl. 604 , 71 P.2d 693 , we said in the first paragraph of the syllabus that the constitutional provision prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without just compensation "authorizes a recovery in a common-law action for damages, although there is no physical invasion of plaintiff's property, if he suffers a special injury, different in kind and not in degree from that suffered by the community in general." For a statement of the general rule to effect that "the owner of land abutting on a street or highway has a private right in such street or highway, di

1959Co. v. Hughes, 180 Okl. 604 , 71 P.2d 693 , we said in the first paragraph of the syllabus that the constitutional provision prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without just compensation "authorizes a recovery in a common-law action for damages, although there is no physical invasion of plaintiff's property, if he suffers a special injury, different in kind and not in degree from that suffered by the community in general." For a statement of the general rule to effect that "the owner of land abutting on a street or highway has a private right in such street or highway, di

1945Jur., Eminent Domain, § 342; 20 C.J. 982; 29 C.J.S. 1256; Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District v. Fitzpatrick, 201 Minn. 442 , 277 N.W. 394 , 124 A.L.R. 897 .

1945Jur., Eminent Domain, § 342; 20 C.J. 982; 29 C.J.S. 1256; Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District v. Fitzpatrick, 201 Minn. 442 , 277 N.W. 394 , 124 A.L.R. 897 .

1937It is noted, however, that the statement of the general rule by these authorities is, in each instance, qualified by the phrase “in the absence of fraud.” As mentioned above, the defendants alleged that the contract was obtained by fraud, and according to the undisputed evidence. “the defendant bought said roofing with the understanding that the plaintiff was to supervise putting it on and would not have bought it but for such agreement * * * and it was without any value to it unless the plaintiff would supervise the putting on of the same * * * that the plaintiff through its lawfully authoriz

1937It is noted, however, that the statement of the general rule by these authorities is, in each instance, qualified by the phrase “in the absence of fraud.” As mentioned above, the defendants alleged that the contract was obtained by fraud, and according to the undisputed evidence. “the defendant bought said roofing with the understanding that the plaintiff was to supervise putting it on and would not have bought it but for such agreement * * * and it was without any value to it unless the plaintiff would supervise the putting on of the same * * * that the plaintiff through its lawfully authoriz

1916The language of the opinion in Higbee v. McMillian, 18 Kan. 133 , while not having relation to a state of facts identical with those in this case, nevertheless declares a principle applicable to the general question, and definitely and positively settles the rule against the contention of the defendant in error.

1907In the case of Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647 , removed from the state court of Kansas to the circuit court of the United States, upon the authority of Toby v. Allen, 3 Kan. 399 ; Hanson v. Towel, 19 Kan. 273 ; and Nelson v. Herkel, 30 Kan. 456 , 2 Pac. 110 , it was held that the operation of the statute was suspended until an administrator had been appointed; and, while that case was pending on appeal in the supreme court of the United States, the same question was presented to the supreme court of the state of Kansas in the case of Balserman v. Charlott, 46 Kan. 480 , 26 Pac. 1051 , and,

1907In the case of Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647 , removed from the state court of Kansas to the circuit court of the United States, upon the authority of Toby v. Allen, 3 Kan. 399 ; Hanson v. Towel, 19 Kan. 273 ; and Nelson v. Herkel, 30 Kan. 456 , 2 Pac. 110 , it was held that the operation of the statute was suspended until an administrator had been appointed; and, while that case was pending on appeal in the supreme court of the United States, the same question was presented to the supreme court of the state of Kansas in the case of Balserman v. Charlott, 46 Kan. 480 , 26 Pac. 1051 , and,

1907In the case of Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647 , removed from the state court of Kansas to the circuit court of the United States, upon the authority of Toby v. Allen, 3 Kan. 399 ; Hanson v. Towel, 19 Kan. 273 ; and Nelson v. Herkel, 30 Kan. 456 , 2 Pac. 110 , it was held that the operation of the statute was suspended until an administrator had been appointed; and, while that case was pending on appeal in the supreme court of the United States, the same question was presented to the supreme court of the state of Kansas in the case of Balserman v. Charlott, 46 Kan. 480 , 26 Pac. 1051 , and,

1907In the case of Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647 , removed from the state court of Kansas to the circuit court of the United States, upon the authority of Toby v. Allen, 3 Kan. 399 ; Hanson v. Towel, 19 Kan. 273 ; and Nelson v. Herkel, 30 Kan. 456 , 2 Pac. 110 , it was held that the operation of the statute was suspended until an administrator had been appointed; and, while that case was pending on appeal in the supreme court of the United States, the same question was presented to the supreme court of the state of Kansas in the case of Balserman v. Charlott, 46 Kan. 480 , 26 Pac. 1051 , and,

1907In the case of Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647 , removed from the state court of Kansas to the circuit court of the United States, upon the authority of Toby v. Allen, 3 Kan. 399 ; Hanson v. Towel, 19 Kan. 273 ; and Nelson v. Herkel, 30 Kan. 456 , 2 Pac. 110 , it was held that the operation of the statute was suspended until an administrator had been appointed; and, while that case was pending on appeal in the supreme court of the United States, the same question was presented to the supreme court of the state of Kansas in the case of Balserman v. Charlott, 46 Kan. 480 , 26 Pac. 1051 , and,