Case Name: SINCLAIR TEXAS PIPE LINE CO. et al. v. PATTERSON
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1935-12-17
Citations: 175 Okla. 438
Docket Number: No. 23528
Parties: SINCLAIR TEXAS PIPE LINE CO. et al. v. PATTERSON.
Judges: M'-NEHL. C. .1 , and RILEY, BAYLESS, BUSBY. WELCH, PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
SINCLAIR TEXAS PIPE LINE CO. et al. v. PATTERSON.
No. 23528.
Dec. 17, 1935.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1936.
Application for Leave to File Second Petition for Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1936.
Edward H. Chandler, Ralph W. Garrett, J. S. Ross, S. J. Olay, and Jas. H. Ross, for plaintiffs in error
Speakman & Speakman, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
OSBORN,- V. O. J.
This action was instituted in the district court of Payne county hy Elmer Patterson, as plaintiff, against the Sinclair Texas Pipe Line Company. Ed Wheeler, and Meador & Whitaker, as defendants, wherein plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries. The cause was tried to a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff. From a judgment thereon defendants appeal.
Pending the appeal in this court, plaintiff, Elmer Patterson, died and the cause was revived in the name of Lula Patterson, admin-istratrix of the estate of the deceased. Defendant Meador also died pending the appeal, and the cause was revived in the name of O. O Whitaker, the surviving partner.
We have examined the record and briefs, and it appears that the issues of law 'and fact are identical with the issues involved in Sinclair Texas Pipe Line Co. et al. v. H. E. Ross, 175 Okla. 435, 54 P. (2d) 204, this day decided by this court, and said decision is controlling as to the issues involved herein.
Accordingly the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
M'-NEHL. C. .1 , and RILEY, BAYLESS, BUSBY. WELCH, PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.