Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

SINCLAIR TEXAS PIPE LINE CO. et al. v. PATTERSON.

(Syllabus.)

Syllabus Adopted.

The syllabus in Sinclair Texas Pipe Line Co. et al. v. H.E. Ross, 175 Okla. 435, 54 P.2d 204, this day decided, is hereby adopted as the syllabus in this opinion.

OSBORN, V. C. J.

This action was instituted in the district court of Payne county by Elmer Patterson, as plaintiff, against the Sinclair Texas Pipe Line Company. Ed Wheeler, and Meador Whitaker, us 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, administratrix of the estate of the deceased. Defendant Meador also died pending the appeal, and the cause was revived in the name of O.C. 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 to the issues involved herein.

Accordingly the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

McNEILL, C. J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, BUSBY, WELCH, PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SINCLAIR TEXAS PIPE LINE CO. v. PATTERSON
(Feb 11, 1936)