Butte v. Routh

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Butte v. Routh

1917 OK 613, 169 P. 891, 66 Okla. 320, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 221

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 11, 1917

Docket7965

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1917 OK 613 (Butte v. Routh) 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

Butte v. Routh, 1917 OK 613, 169 P. 891, 66 Okla. 320, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 221 (Okla. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

STEWART, C.

Judgment was rendered in the district court of Mus kogee county against George C. Butte, S. H. Lattimore, and Robert J. Boone in favor of Avery L. Routh as plaintiff. The defendants George C. Butte and S. H. Latti-more duly filed motion for new trial, which was overruled, with exceptions, and such defendants appeal to this court. On June 2, 1917, the plaintiff duly filed brief in this court setting forth the errors complained of, and argument in support thereof. The defendants in error Avery L. Routh and Robert J. Boone have neither filed brief nor offered excuse for failure to do so. More than six months have elapsed since the filing of the brief by plaintiffs in error. It is a well-established rule of this court that where the defendant in error chooses not to aid the court with a brief, offering no excuse for such failure, and the brief of the plaintiff in error reasonably supports error properly assigned,- the judgment complained of will be reversed. Nettograph Machine Co. v. Brown, 19 Okla. 77, 91 Pac. 849; Taby v. McMurray, 30 Okla. 602, 120 Pac. 664; Butler v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465, 107 Pac. 170; Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okla. 469, 106 Pac. 957; Buckner v. Oklahoma Nat. Bank, 25 Okla. 472, 106 Pac. 959; Sharpleigh Hdw. Co. v. Prichard, 25 Okla. 808, 108 Pac. 360; School Dist. v. Shelton, 26 Okla. 229, 109 Pac. 67, 138 Am. St. Rep. 962; Flanagan v. Davis, 27 Okla. 422, 112 Pac. 990; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Long, 27 Okla. 456, 112 Pac. 991; Phillips v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 99, 118 Pac. 371; Doyle v. School Dist., 30 Okla. 81, 118 Pac. 386; Bank of Grove v. Dennis, 30 Okla. 70, 118 Pac. 570; Hawkins v. White, 31 Okla. 118, 120 Pac. 561; Rudd v. Wilson, 32 Okla. 85, 131 Pac. 252, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 485; Reynolds, Davis & Co. v. Hotchkiss, 31 Okla. 606, 122 Pac. 165; First Nat. Bank v. Blair, 31 Okla. 562, 122 Pac. 527; Van Arsdale-Osborne Brokerage Co. v. Patterson, 30 Okla. 113, 120 Pac. 933; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Haworth, 48 Okla. 132, 149 Pac. 1086; Eckes v. Luse et al., 48 Okla. 155, 149 Pac. 905. From an examination of the brief of plaintiffs in error, we find that the instant ease comes within the rule announced.

Under the authorities cited1, the cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial

By the Court; It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

STEWART, C.

Judgment was rendered in the district court of Mus kogee county against George C. Butte, S. H. Lattimore, and Robert J. Boone in favor of Avery L. Routh as plaintiff. The defendants George C. Butte and S. H. Latti-more duly filed motion for new trial, which was overruled, with exceptions, and such defendants appeal to this court. On June 2, 1917, the plaintiff duly filed brief in this court setting forth the errors complained of, and argument in support thereof. The defendants in error Avery L. Routh and Robert J. Boone have neither filed brief nor offered excuse for failure to do so. More than six months have elapsed since the filing of the brief by plaintiffs in error. It is a well-established rule of this court that where the defendant in error chooses not to aid the court with a brief, offering no excuse for such failure, and the brief of the plaintiff in error reasonably supports error properly assigned,- the judgment complained of will be reversed. Nettograph Machine Co. v. Brown, 19 Okla. 77, 91 Pac. 849; Taby v. McMurray, 30 Okla. 602, 120 Pac. 664; Butler v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465, 107 Pac. 170; Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okla. 469, 106 Pac. 957; Buckner v. Oklahoma Nat. Bank, 25 Okla. 472, 106 Pac. 959; Sharpleigh Hdw. Co. v. Prichard, 25 Okla. 808, 108 Pac. 360; School Dist. v. Shelton, 26 Okla. 229, 109 Pac. 67, 138 Am. St. Rep. 962; Flanagan v. Davis, 27 Okla. 422, 112 Pac. 990; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Long, 27 Okla. 456, 112 Pac. 991; Phillips v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 99, 118 Pac. 371; Doyle v. School Dist., 30 Okla. 81, 118 Pac. 386; Bank of Grove v. Dennis, 30 Okla. 70, 118 Pac. 570; Hawkins v. White, 31 Okla. 118, 120 Pac. 561; Rudd v. Wilson, 32 Okla. 85, 131 Pac. 252, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 485; Reynolds, Davis & Co. v. Hotchkiss, 31 Okla. 606, 122 Pac. 165; First Nat. Bank v. Blair, 31 Okla. 562, 122 Pac. 527; Van Arsdale-Osborne Brokerage Co. v. Patterson, 30 Okla. 113, 120 Pac. 933; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Haworth, 48 Okla. 132, 149 Pac. 1086; Eckes v. Luse et al., 48 Okla. 155, 149 Pac. 905. From an examination of the brief of plaintiffs in error, we find that the instant ease comes within the rule announced.

Under the authorities cited1, the cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial

By the Court; It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK 613, 169 P. 891, 66 Okla. 320, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butte-v-routh-okla-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack