Case Name: OLIPHANT et al. v. CRANE et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1918-05-14
Citations: 70 Okla. 39
Docket Number: No. 8572
Parties: OLIPHANT et al. v. CRANE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 39–40

Head Matter:
OLIPHANT et al. v. CRANE et al.
No. 8572
Opinion Filed May 14, 1918.
(172 Pac. 1074.)
Pleading — Judgment on Pleading — Effect — Admissions.
The syllabus in No. 8571, John A. Oliphant et al. v. J. E. Crane, Administrator, ante, p. 38, 172 Pae. 1073, is adopted herein.
(Syllabus by Galbraith, C.)
Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Conn Linn, Judge.
Action by J. E. Crane, as administrator of Laura Crane, deceased, and A. H. Harrison, as administrator of J. H. Harrison, deceased, against John A. Oliphant and O. B. Lynch. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
Robinson & Mieher, for plaintiffs in error,
S. E. Gidney, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
GALBRAITH, O.
This was an action against the sureties on a supersedeas bond given to stay execution pending appeal from the judgment of fire trial court to the Supreme Court of the state. It differs only from case No. 8571, ante, p. 38, 172 Pae. 1073', just handed down, in that the judgment recovered against the Merchants' & Planters' Insurance Company was recovered by Laura Crane and J. H. Harrison. The judgment was for the same amount and rendered in the same court and on the same day as in case No. 8571, and the supersedeas bond was in the same amount, and was executed by the same principal and sureties. The judgment on appeal was affirmed on the second day of April, 1912. Both the parties plaintiff in the trial court, Laura Crane and J. H. Harrison, having died, this action was prosecuted by their respective administrators.
The petition in this action alleged the same facts as ground for recovery and the answer sets up the same ground for defense as in case No. 8571. Upon authority oí that case the judgment appealed from in this case should he affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.