Case ID: okla_117/html/0235-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PINKHAM, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SPARKMAN et al. v. W. T. RAWLEIGH CO.
    No. 14284
    Opinion Filed April 13, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied April 27, 1926.
    Error from District Court, Garvin County : W. L. Eagleton, Judge. ■
    Action by W. T. Rawleigh Company against T. L. Sparkman et al. From judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    Cicero I. Murray, for plaintiffs in error.
    Sam K. Sullivan, R. J. ghive, and Bowling & Farmer, for defendant in erVor.
   Opinion by

PINKHAM, C.

The plaintiff below, opposing attorneys, and the issues are the same, and the evidence tendered by the defendants is in effect the same, as in the case of I. J. Gordon et al. v. W. T. Raw-leigh Co., No. 14285, this day decided, infra, p. 235. The opinion and syllabus in thp.t case are adopted as the opinion and syllabus in this case, and the judgment 'is affirmed.

Defendant in error in this case hrs asked for a judgment against the sureties on the supersedeas bond filed herein, in the event the judgment of the trial court should ■ be affirmed, it appearing that judgment herein was superseded by a bond on which R. D. Pratt and J. H. Pruitt were sureties. Judgment is therefore rendered against the said sureties on the supersedeas bond.

By the Court: It is so ordered.