CUBERLY BROS. MERC. CO. v. BOGGESS

Annotate this Case

CUBERLY BROS. MERC. CO. v. BOGGESS
1930 OK 590
294 P. 186
147 Okla. 39
Case Number: 19769
Decided: 12/23/1930
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CUBERLY BROS. MERC. CO.
v.
BOGGESS et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Syllabus Adopted.
The syllabus of the case of Citizens' State Bank of Vici, Okla., v. Lyman T. Boggess et al., No. 19768, this day decided by this court, is here adopted as the syllabus in this case. (147 Okla. 37, 294 P. 185).

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.

Error from District Court, Ellis County; C. C. Smith, Judge.

Action by Cuberly Bros. Merc. Co. against Lyman T. Boggess, Emma Boggess, O. D. Bell, and the Commissioners of the Land Office of the State of Oklahoma, in which Tom W. Boggess moved therein to set aside attachment and sale of lands. Motions of Tom W. Boggess sustained, and plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

Leedy & Leedy, for plaintiff in error.
Tom L. Ruble and E. S. Collier, for defendants in error.

REID, C.

¶1 In this case Cuberly Bros. Mercantile Company began this suit on the 3rd day of June, 1927, against Lyman T. Boggess on certain notes given by him to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought attachment against certain land described in the petition, and named, as claiming an interest in the land, Emma Boggess, wife of Lyman T. Boggess, C. D. Bell, and Commissioners of the Land Office of the state of Oklahoma. The proceedings in the case are substantially identical with those in the case of No. 19768, Citizens' State Bank of Vici v. Boggess et al., this day decided, 147 Okla. 37, 294 P. 185, except that the attachment proceedings in this cause seem to have been levied subject to the attachment levy made by the Citizens' State Bank of Vici on the land; Tom W. Boggess having also moved in this case to set aside the attachment and sale.

¶2 The questions presented in the appeal of these cases are the same. The cases are briefed together, and for the reasons stated in the opinion in the former case, here controlling, this case must also be affirmed. And it is so ordered.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.