Bennett v. Meek

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bennett v. Meek

1915 OK 19, 145 P. 767, 45 Okla. 326, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 271

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 9, 1915

Docket5372

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1915 OK 19 (Bennett v. Meek) 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

Bennett v. Meek, 1915 OK 19, 145 P. 767, 45 Okla. 326, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 271 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

RIDDLE, J.

The parties will be designated here as they were in the trial court. Plaintiff sued defendants in the court below upon a promissory noee in the sum of $300. Judgment was rendered by default against all defendants, except S. P. Bennett, who filed an answer consisting of a general denial. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment ,on the pleadings, which was • by the court sustained. Erom the judgment thus rendered, defendant Bennett prosecutes error.

It appears from the petition in error and motion to dismiss that there is no merit in the appeal; that same is frivolous, and prosecuted for delay. It was said by this court in the case of Skirvin v. Bass Furniture & C. Co., 43 Okla. 440, 143 Pac. 190:

“Where, upon the examination of the petition in error and the *327 motion to dismiss, it is clearly disclosed that the appeal is manifestly frivolous and without merit, the appeal will be dismissed.”

Skirvin v. Goldstein, 40 Okla. 315, 137 Pac. 1176.

Following the rule laid down in the cases sufra, this cause should be dismissed; and it is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

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