Bellis v. Crissman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bellis v. Crissman

1921 OK 277, 200 P. 145, 82 Okla. 207, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 243

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 12, 1921

Docket10236

StatusPublished

This text of 1921 OK 277 (Bellis v. Crissman) 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

Bellis v. Crissman, 1921 OK 277, 200 P. 145, 82 Okla. 207, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 243 (Okla. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLER, J.

This action was commenced in the district court of Oklahoma county by John H. Bellis against R M. .Crissman. I. B. Levy, and H. W. Pentecost, to recover on a .building contractor’s bond. A jury was duly impaneled and sworn to try said cause. The plaintiff introduced his evidence, and at the close of the evidence, defendants I. B. Levy and H. W. Pentecost demurred to the evidence for the reason that it was not sufficient to, entitle plaintiff to recover as against defendants I. B‘. Levy and H. W. Pentecost, who were sureties on the bond. The court sustained the demurrer to the evidence. From this ruling of the court, the plaintiff appealed and .appears here as plaintiff in error.

This cause was regularly assigned for submission. on June 14, 1921, on the printed -docket of this court. The plaintiff in error has failed to filé a 'brief. No reason is given Why a brief has not been filed in compliance with rule No. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vi). In re Seizure One Chevrolet, Baby Grand Auto v. State of Oklahoma, No. 10282, 82 Okla. 202, 200 Pac. 144.

This -appeal is hereby dismissed, because the plaintiff in error has failed to file a brief.

PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

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

MILLER, J.

This action was commenced in the district court of Oklahoma county by John H. Bellis against R M. .Crissman. I. B. Levy, and H. W. Pentecost, to recover on a .building contractor’s bond. A jury was duly impaneled and sworn to try said cause. The plaintiff introduced his evidence, and at the close of the evidence, defendants I. B. Levy and H. W. Pentecost demurred to the evidence for the reason that it was not sufficient to, entitle plaintiff to recover as against defendants I. B‘. Levy and H. W. Pentecost, who were sureties on the bond. The court sustained the demurrer to the evidence. From this ruling of the court, the plaintiff appealed and .appears here as plaintiff in error.

This cause was regularly assigned for submission. on June 14, 1921, on the printed -docket of this court. The plaintiff in error has failed to filé a 'brief. No reason is given Why a brief has not been filed in compliance with rule No. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vi). In re Seizure One Chevrolet, Baby Grand Auto v. State of Oklahoma, No. 10282, 82 Okla. 202, 200 Pac. 144.

This -appeal is hereby dismissed, because the plaintiff in error has failed to file a brief.

PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1921 OK 277, 200 P. 145, 82 Okla. 207, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellis-v-crissman-okla-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack