Carver v. Kenyon

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Carver v. Kenyon

1913 OK 580, 135 P. 1050, 40 Okla. 232, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 55

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 14, 1913

Docket4294

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1913 OK 580 (Carver v. Kenyon) 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

Carver v. Kenyon, 1913 OK 580, 135 P. 1050, 40 Okla. 232, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 55 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

HAYES, C. J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the court below on a promissory note. Plaintiff in error fails to set out in his brief the specifications of error complained of, separately set forth and numbered, and argument and authorities relied on, as is required by. rule 25 (38 Okla. x, 95 Pac. viii). He argueé certain propositions of law in his brief; but we are unable to determine from his brief, in the absence of any specifications of error, whether such propositions of law arose upon any action of the cou'rt below to which exceptions have been duly saved, to be presented to this court on.appeal. It has been held repeatedly that, where the foregoing rule is not *233 complied with in the brief of plaintiff in error, the. appeal will be dismissed. Eiklor v. Badger, 25 Okla. 853, 108 Pac. 359; Mahaney v. Union Inv. Co., 23 Okla. 533, 101 Pac. 1054.

The proceeding in error is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

HAYES, C. J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the court below on a promissory note. Plaintiff in error fails to set out in his brief the specifications of error complained of, separately set forth and numbered, and argument and authorities relied on, as is required by. rule 25 (38 Okla. x, 95 Pac. viii). He argueé certain propositions of law in his brief; but we are unable to determine from his brief, in the absence of any specifications of error, whether such propositions of law arose upon any action of the cou'rt below to which exceptions have been duly saved, to be presented to this court on.appeal. It has been held repeatedly that, where the foregoing rule is not *233 complied with in the brief of plaintiff in error, the. appeal will be dismissed. Eiklor v. Badger, 25 Okla. 853, 108 Pac. 359; Mahaney v. Union Inv. Co., 23 Okla. 533, 101 Pac. 1054.

The proceeding in error is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 580, 135 P. 1050, 40 Okla. 232, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carver-v-kenyon-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack