Boyd v. Webb Queensware Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Boyd v. Webb Queensware Co.

1913 OK 621, 136 P. 422, 40 Okla. 115, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 28

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 11, 1913

Docket2950

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1913 OK 621 (Boyd v. Webb Queensware Co.) 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

Boyd v. Webb Queensware Co., 1913 OK 621, 136 P. 422, 40 Okla. 115, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 28 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

*116 HAYES, C. J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the court below against plaintiff in error upon an account. Since the institution of the appeal, plaintiff in error has filed a plea in abatement. Defendant in error, before the cause was reached for submission, filed a brief in opposition to the plea in abatement and upon the merits of the case, urging that the same should be affirmed. Plaintiff in error, on the other hand, has failed to file any brief in support o'f his plea in abatement, or upon the merits of his cause.

Since he has failed to comply with rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 95 Pac. vi) by filing briefs, his appeal should be "and is dismissed, for want of prosecution. Baker v. Forrest, 26 Okla. 12, 108 Pac. 407; Bohanan v. Wilson, 27 Okla. 753, 117 Pac. 209; Rice v. Jones, 32 Okla. 734, 124 Pac. 67.

All the Justices concur, except WILLIAMS, J., absent and not participating.

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

*116 HAYES, C. J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the court below against plaintiff in error upon an account. Since the institution of the appeal, plaintiff in error has filed a plea in abatement. Defendant in error, before the cause was reached for submission, filed a brief in opposition to the plea in abatement and upon the merits of the case, urging that the same should be affirmed. Plaintiff in error, on the other hand, has failed to file any brief in support o'f his plea in abatement, or upon the merits of his cause.

Since he has failed to comply with rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 95 Pac. vi) by filing briefs, his appeal should be "and is dismissed, for want of prosecution. Baker v. Forrest, 26 Okla. 12, 108 Pac. 407; Bohanan v. Wilson, 27 Okla. 753, 117 Pac. 209; Rice v. Jones, 32 Okla. 734, 124 Pac. 67.

All the Justices concur, except WILLIAMS, J., absent and not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 621, 136 P. 422, 40 Okla. 115, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-webb-queensware-co-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack