Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Peters

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Peters

1934 OK 274, 32 P.2d 718, 168 Okla. 243, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 140

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 8, 1934

Docket24376

StatusPublished

This text of 1934 OK 274 (Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Peters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Peters, 1934 OK 274, 32 P.2d 718, 168 Okla. 243, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 140 (Okla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A judgment was rendered in the court below for the plaintiff upon a petition for breach of warranty. On the 9th day of January, 1933, plaintiff in error filed its appeal herein by petition in error and case-made attached, and on the 10th day of October, 1933, filed a brief. The defendant in error has failed to file brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. This court has repeatedly held that, under such circumstances, it is not the duty of the court to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but it may, where *244 the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chapman v. Taylor, 163 Okla. 274, 21 P. (2d) 1058; Moore v. Jefferson, 164 Okla. 270, 23 P. (2d) 693.

The cause is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to vacate the order and judgment heretofore entered for the plaintiff and to enter judgment for -the. defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

A judgment was rendered in the court below for the plaintiff upon a petition for breach of warranty. On the 9th day of January, 1933, plaintiff in error filed its appeal herein by petition in error and case-made attached, and on the 10th day of October, 1933, filed a brief. The defendant in error has failed to file brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. This court has repeatedly held that, under such circumstances, it is not the duty of the court to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but it may, where *244 the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chapman v. Taylor, 163 Okla. 274, 21 P. (2d) 1058; Moore v. Jefferson, 164 Okla. 270, 23 P. (2d) 693.

The cause is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to vacate the order and judgment heretofore entered for the plaintiff and to enter judgment for -the. defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1934 OK 274, 32 P.2d 718, 168 Okla. 243, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/advance-rumely-thresher-co-v-peters-okla-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack