House v. Mainka , 196 Okla. 174 ( 1945 )

I concur with the conclusion here reached by reason of the rule adopted in Lind v. McKinley, 196 Okla. 4, 161 P.2d 1016. I think that rule as to erroneous excess of amount in the notice of resale is controlling upon the facts here and compels the conclusion that this resale is likewise invalid for similar erroneous excess in the notice.