Ahfonoke v. Bullett

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Ahfonoke v. Bullett

1926 OK 421, 246 P. 385, 114 Okla. 243, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 1007

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 4, 1926

Docket10632

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1926 OK 421 (Ahfonoke v. Bullett) 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

Ahfonoke v. Bullett, 1926 OK 421, 246 P. 385, 114 Okla. 243, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 1007 (Okla. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought in the district court of Creek county by James Bullett land Susie Harjo against plaintiffs in error and defendants in error, who are numerous and need not be set out: in this opinion, to recover a eertain tract of land in Creek county allotted by Charley Keys and of which he died seized aiid possessed. At his death the land descended to his widow and minor child. The child died, and the main contention is as to whether "the land descended under the Arkansas statute. The widow died, and her interest descended to her father, Joe Deere, and cross-petitioners in error, Yarner Chupco, Amanda Micc-o, Mary Deere, Lucy Buckner, and John M. McDonald, guardian ad litem, claim to be the sole heirs of John Deere, and therefore entitled to the land. Defendants in error D. Replogle and II. L. Graves also claim title to the land, and were adjudged to be the -owners of the land as against cross-petitioners in error, and they appealed. The rights and interests of all the parties to this voluminous record have been settled ’ except the issues involved as between cross-petitioners in' error hereinbe-fore’ mentioned and defendants in error D. Replogle .and H. L. Graves. Cross-petitioners in error filed their brief in this court on the 19th day of September, 1919, but defendants in error have filed no brief and have shown no reason why same has not. been done..

In such a situation this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upen which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but where the brief filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error reasonably supports his assignments of error, this court will reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition in. error. Security Insurance Co. v. Droke, 40 Okla. 116, 136 Pac. 340; Frost v. Haley, 63 Okla. 19, 161 Pac. 1174.

We have carefully examined the brief of' the plaintiff in error in this cause and the same appears to reasonably sustain the assignments of error. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court, of Creek county, with directions to grant a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought in the district court of Creek county by James Bullett land Susie Harjo against plaintiffs in error and defendants in error, who are numerous and need not be set out: in this opinion, to recover a eertain tract of land in Creek county allotted by Charley Keys and of which he died seized aiid possessed. At his death the land descended to his widow and minor child. The child died, and the main contention is as to whether "the land descended under the Arkansas statute. The widow died, and her interest descended to her father, Joe Deere, and cross-petitioners in error, Yarner Chupco, Amanda Micc-o, Mary Deere, Lucy Buckner, and John M. McDonald, guardian ad litem, claim to be the sole heirs of John Deere, and therefore entitled to the land. Defendants in error D. Replogle and II. L. Graves also claim title to the land, and were adjudged to be the -owners of the land as against cross-petitioners in error, and they appealed. The rights and interests of all the parties to this voluminous record have been settled ’ except the issues involved as between cross-petitioners in' error hereinbe-fore’ mentioned and defendants in error D. Replogle .and H. L. Graves. Cross-petitioners in error filed their brief in this court on the 19th day of September, 1919, but defendants in error have filed no brief and have shown no reason why same has not. been done..

In such a situation this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upen which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but where the brief filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error reasonably supports his assignments of error, this court will reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition in. error. Security Insurance Co. v. Droke, 40 Okla. 116, 136 Pac. 340; Frost v. Haley, 63 Okla. 19, 161 Pac. 1174.

We have carefully examined the brief of' the plaintiff in error in this cause and the same appears to reasonably sustain the assignments of error. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court, of Creek county, with directions to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK 421, 246 P. 385, 114 Okla. 243, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 1007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahfonoke-v-bullett-okla-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack