Bullock v. Peek

1917 OK 522, 168 P. 797, 66 Okla. 240, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 189
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 6, 1917
Docket8357
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1917 OK 522 (Bullock v. Peek) 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
Bullock v. Peek, 1917 OK 522, 168 P. 797, 66 Okla. 240, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 189 (Okla. 1917).

Opinion

Opinion by

PRYOR, C.

This is a forcible entry and detainer action commenced in the justice court of Ellis county, where judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant in error, H. V. Peek, and against the plaintiff in error, J. C. Bullock. From this judgment the plaintiff in error, J. C. Bullock, appealed to thre district court, where, on the 13th day of May, 1916, the cause came on for trial de novo, and the court rendered a default judgment against the plaintiff in error and in favor of the defendant in error without requiring the plaintiff to prove the allegations of his complaint, from which judgment the plaintiff in error prosecutes his appeal to this court.

The plaintiff in error contends that the trial court erred in rendering a default judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the allegations of 'his complaint. Section 6510, Revised Laws of 1910, the same being a section of the forcible entry and de-tainer act, provides:

“If the defendant does not appear in accordance with the. requisitions of the summons, and it shall have been properly served, the justice shall try the cause as though he was present.”

The provisions of “this section are mandatory, and it is error for the district court on appeal, where the cause is tried de novo, *241 in a forcible entry and detainer action, to render a judgment of default without requiring the plaintiff to prove the allegations of his complaint. Smith v. Finger, 15 Okla. 120, 79 Pac. 759.

Therefore the judgment of the trial court should be reversed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Related

Anthony v. Griffith
1938 OK 153 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Stephens v. Sheldon
1924 OK 1138 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Barker v. Honeywell
1917 OK 623 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1917 OK 522, 168 P. 797, 66 Okla. 240, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullock-v-peek-okla-1917.