Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
OKLAHOMA STATE BANK, ENID, OKL., v. GALION IRON WORKS & MFG. CO., 1926 — 11 F.2d 370 · caselaw · US
General
OKLAHOMA STATE BANK, ENID, OKL., v. GALION IRON WORKS & MFG. CO.
11 F.2d 370·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1926
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
OKLAHOMA STATE BANK, ENID, OKL., v. GALION IRON WORKS & MFG. CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
February 23, 1926.)
No. 6553.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma; John H. Cotteral, Judge.
On rehearing, correcting judgment.
For former opinion, see 4 F.(2d) 337.
Clifford Histed, of Kansas City, Mo. (C. F. Dyer and H. E. Keim, both of Enid, Okl., William O. Thomas, of Kansas City, Mo., and C. O. Blake, of El Reno, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
J. D. Lydiek, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (H. J. Sturgis, of Enid, Okl., and Lydiek, Mc-Pherren & Wilson, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before SANBORN and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District s Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon the rehearing of this case it was again exhaustively briefed and argued, and we have again read and considered the determinate evidence and the briefs, and are not convinced that there was any error prejudicial to the bank in the trial or judgment herein, except that by mistake the amount stated in the judgment, as counsel for the parties agree, was $600 in excess of the amount which it should have been.
It is accordingly ordered that the judgment in this case, rendered on January 28, 1925, affirming the judgment of the District Court, be and the same is hereby set aside and for naught held, that the court below be and it is directed to change the principal amount of the judgment by substituting the sum of $21,594.54 for the $22,194.54 therein, that the judgment, thus modified, be and it hereby is affirmed, and that the Galion Iron Works & Manufacturing Company have and recover against the Oklahoma State Bank, Enid, Okl., the sum of $20 for its costs herein, and have execution therefor.