Ballew v. Schultz

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Ballew v. Schultz

1915 OK 983, 153 P. 645, 52 Okla. 611, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 337

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 30, 1915

DocketNo. 5628

StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK 983 (Ballew v. Schultz) 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

Ballew v. Schultz, 1915 OK 983, 153 P. 645, 52 Okla. 611, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 337 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

This case comes from the district court of Custer county, where it was tried on the 9th day of April, 1913, and judgment rendered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals. Case-made was filed in the office of the clerk of this court on October 1, 1913. On September 9, 1915, the defendant filed his motion to dismiss because plaintiff had failed to file and serve briefs as required by rule No. 7 of this court (33 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix).

The motion to dismiss appears to have been served upon the attorneys for the plaintiff on September 7, 1915, and defendant has not at this date filed his brief, nor asked for further extension of time in which to file same, and, the case having been reached, we therefore recommend that the motion of defendant be sustained, and the petition in error be dismissed for want of prosecution.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

This case comes from the district court of Custer county, where it was tried on the 9th day of April, 1913, and judgment rendered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals. Case-made was filed in the office of the clerk of this court on October 1, 1913. On September 9, 1915, the defendant filed his motion to dismiss because plaintiff had failed to file and serve briefs as required by rule No. 7 of this court (33 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix).

The motion to dismiss appears to have been served upon the attorneys for the plaintiff on September 7, 1915, and defendant has not at this date filed his brief, nor asked for further extension of time in which to file same, and, the case having been reached, we therefore recommend that the motion of defendant be sustained, and the petition in error be dismissed for want of prosecution.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 983, 153 P. 645, 52 Okla. 611, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballew-v-schultz-okla-1915.