Case ID: okla_110/html/0039-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THOMPSON, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

B. F. AVERY & SONS PLOW CO. v. BRITT et al.
    No. 15258
    Opinion Filed March 31, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied May 5, 1925.
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5.
    Error from District Court, Pittsburg County; Harve L. Melton, Judge.
    Action by B. P. Avery & Sons Plow Company against W. O. Britt and A. E. Britt, doing business under the name and style of Britt-Sheffield Company. Judgment for defendants. and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. C. Markley, for plaintiff in error.
    George M. Porter and John L. Puller, for defendants in error.
   Opinion by

THOMPSON, C.

This action was commenced in the district court of Pitts-burg county by B. P. Avery & Sons Plow Company, plaintiff in error, against W. O. Britt and A. E. Britt, doing business under the name and style of Britt-Sheffield Company, defendants in error, for $540.57 due on open account. Judgment for defendants in error, and plaintiff in error appeals.

'It was admitted by counsel for- both parties, in oral argument and in their briefs, that the issues made up by the pleadings and the decisive facts in this ease are the same as in the ease of Doyle Dry Goods Company v. W. O. Britt and A. E. Britt, No. 15256, just decided by this court, 110 Okla. 35, 235 Pac. 1077, except in the name of the plaintiff in error and the amount involved. Upon said issues, facts, and legal propositions applicable, the decision in the instant case must follow the decision in the case supra, which opinion is adopted as the opinion in this case, and the syllabus of that ease is also adopted, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.