strength presumption in Oklahoma

1943On the contrary, it is provided in part by section 3, supra, that "illegitimacy in such a case may be proved like any other fact." At an early date this court, in Bell v. Territory, 8 Okla. 75 , 56 P. 853 , noted the discrepancy in judicial expressions as to the strength of the presumption and adopted a "middle ground" to test the sufficiency of evidence to overcome it.

1943On the contrary, it is provided in part by section 3, supra, that "illegitimacy in such a case may be proved like any other fact." At an early date this court, in Bell v. Territory, 8 Okla. 75 , 56 P. 853 , noted the discrepancy in judicial expressions as to the strength of the presumption and adopted a "middle ground" to test the sufficiency of evidence to overcome it.

1961Co. v. McFarlan, 43 N.J.L. 605 , as follows: “Protests and remonstrances by the owner of the servient tenement against the use of the easement, rather add to the strength of the claim of a prescriptive right; for a holding in defiance of such expostulations is demonstrative proof that the enjoyment is under a claim of right, hostile and adverse; and if they be not accompanied by acts amounting to a disturbance of the right in a legal sense, they are not interruptions or obstructions of the enjoyment.” In view of the undisputed protestations of Mrs. Whelan, during the prescriptive period, indic

1960In Sy Joc Lieng et al. v. Sy Quia et al., 228 U.S. 335 , 33 S.Ct. 514, 515 , 57 L.Ed. 862 , a person who claimed to be the offspring of a marriage consummated in 1847 attacked a subsequent marriage consummated in 1853, which latter marriage continued until 1894 when dissolved by death of one of the parties.

1960In Sy Joc Lieng et al. v. Sy Quia et al., 228 U.S. 335 , 33 S.Ct. 514, 515 , 57 L.Ed. 862 , a person who claimed to be the offspring of a marriage consummated in 1847 attacked a subsequent marriage consummated in 1853, which latter marriage continued until 1894 when dissolved by death of one of the parties.

1945It is contended on the strength of the doctrine announced by this court in Creek Land & Improvement Co. v. Davis, 38 Okla. 579 , 115 P. 468 , and Cooper v. Flesner, 24 Okla. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.

1945It is contended on the strength of the doctrine announced by this court in Creek Land & Improvement Co. v. Davis, 38 Okla. 579 , 115 P. 468 , and Cooper v. Flesner, 24 Okla. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.

1945It is contended on the strength of the doctrine announced by this court in Creek Land & Improvement Co. v. Davis, 38 Okla. 579 , 115 P. 468 , and Cooper v. Flesner, 24 Okla. 47 , 103 P. 1016 , 23 L.R.A.

1916This suit resulted in favor of said plaintiff, and Barnes appealed the case to the Court of Appeals of the Indian Territory, which cause, upon the coming of statehood, was tried by the Supreme Court of this state as successor of said Indian Territory court, and this court rendered a decision in said case, in which it held ( 28 Okla. 75 ) : “But plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, and it now becomes bur duty to test the strength of his claim and determine whether the same is sufficient upon which to base a recovery.