Brown v. Giblet

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Brown v. Giblet

18 P.2d 544, 161 Okla. 262, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 442

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 24, 1933

Docket21879

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 18 P.2d 544 (Brown v. Giblet) 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

Brown v. Giblet, 18 P.2d 544, 161 Okla. 262, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 442 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, filed their petition seeking $2,-500' damages. The trial court found against them, and on the 3rd day of November, 1930, plaintiffs perfected their appeal to this court.

Plaintiffs in error, in due time, served and filed their brief in compliance with the rules, of this court, but the defendants in. error have wholly failed to file any brief, pleading, or any (other instrument in said1 cause on appeal, nor have they offered any excuse for their failure to do so. Under this condition of the case, this court is not required to1 search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the plaintiff in error files brief and cites authorities therein which reasonably support and sustain the assignments of error, reverse the judgment of the lower court in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 P. 34; City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481.

We find (upon examination, of the authorities cited by plaintiff in error, they reasonably support the contention of plaintiff, and for the reasons stated the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the trial court ordered to vacate its former judgment .'and grant a new trial.

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.

Plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, filed their petition seeking $2,-500' damages. The trial court found against them, and on the 3rd day of November, 1930, plaintiffs perfected their appeal to this court.

Plaintiffs in error, in due time, served and filed their brief in compliance with the rules, of this court, but the defendants in. error have wholly failed to file any brief, pleading, or any (other instrument in said1 cause on appeal, nor have they offered any excuse for their failure to do so. Under this condition of the case, this court is not required to1 search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the plaintiff in error files brief and cites authorities therein which reasonably support and sustain the assignments of error, reverse the judgment of the lower court in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 P. 34; City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481.

We find (upon examination, of the authorities cited by plaintiff in error, they reasonably support the contention of plaintiff, and for the reasons stated the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the trial court ordered to vacate its former judgment .'and grant a new trial.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 P.2d 544, 161 Okla. 262, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-giblet-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack