Anderson v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Anderson v. Anderson

1933 OK 11, 18 P.2d 548, 161 Okla. 261, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 441

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 24, 1933

Docket22070

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1933 OK 11 (Anderson v. Anderson) 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

Anderson v. Anderson, 1933 OK 11, 18 P.2d 548, 161 Okla. 261, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 441 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

December 9, 1930, defendant in error, plaintiff below, filed her petition for -separate maintenance, and on application January 9, 1931, the trial court appointed a receiver. On an appeal from this order defendant .filed his petition in error herein and filed his brief supporting the errors therein alleged.

Subsequent to the appointment and appeal, O. D. Anderson and Mary Anderson, defendant and plaintiff, respectively, died, and) revivor was- filed against each of their’ legal representatives. No brief has ever been, (filed by the legal representative of Mary Anderson and no ¡excuse has been, offered for tile failure. The authorities cited in plaintiff in error’s brief reasonably tend to stipport the errors alleged.

Under the rule of City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481, this court is not required to sloarch the record for a theory upon which to affirm the appointment of tlie received’, but ¡may reverse and 'remand: the caus'e as prayed for in the petition in error. The real parties’ in interest having ¡both died, there appears no reason why this cause should be continued longer, and the case isi reversed and remanded, with directions to trial court to *262 vacate its order appointing the receiver and: to- dismiss the action. ,

Note: See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 176; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 360.

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

PER CURIAM.

December 9, 1930, defendant in error, plaintiff below, filed her petition for -separate maintenance, and on application January 9, 1931, the trial court appointed a receiver. On an appeal from this order defendant .filed his petition in error herein and filed his brief supporting the errors therein alleged.

Subsequent to the appointment and appeal, O. D. Anderson and Mary Anderson, defendant and plaintiff, respectively, died, and) revivor was- filed against each of their’ legal representatives. No brief has ever been, (filed by the legal representative of Mary Anderson and no ¡excuse has been, offered for tile failure. The authorities cited in plaintiff in error’s brief reasonably tend to stipport the errors alleged.

Under the rule of City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481, this court is not required to sloarch the record for a theory upon which to affirm the appointment of tlie received’, but ¡may reverse and 'remand: the caus'e as prayed for in the petition in error. The real parties’ in interest having ¡both died, there appears no reason why this cause should be continued longer, and the case isi reversed and remanded, with directions to trial court to *262 vacate its order appointing the receiver and: to- dismiss the action. ,

Note: See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 176; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 360.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 11, 18 P.2d 548, 161 Okla. 261, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-anderson-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack