Causey v. Brown

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Causey v. Brown

1928 OK 139, 267 P. 835, 131 Okla. 154, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 599

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 28, 1928

Docket18143

StatusPublished

This text of 1928 OK 139 (Causey v. Brown) 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

Causey v. Brown, 1928 OK 139, 267 P. 835, 131 Okla. 154, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 599 (Okla. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of McCurtain county wherein plaintiff in error was plaintiff below.

Plaintiff in error in .due time served and filed his brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendants in error have wholly failed to file any brief, pleading or otherwise appear in this cause on appeal, nor have they offered any excuse for their failure to do so.

“Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error *155 ñas neither filed a brief, nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause with directions, in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.” City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 254 Pac. 481; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34; Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich, 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

In this case the petition in error prays that the judgment rendered in the trial court be reversed, set aside, and held for naught and judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error and against the defendants in error, and we find, upon examination of the authorities cited by plaintiff in error, they reasonably support the contention of plaintiff in error, that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and direct it to vacate its former judgment and to grant a new trial in -said cause.

Note. — See 3 C. J. p. 1447, §1607.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of McCurtain county wherein plaintiff in error was plaintiff below.

Plaintiff in error in .due time served and filed his brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendants in error have wholly failed to file any brief, pleading or otherwise appear in this cause on appeal, nor have they offered any excuse for their failure to do so.

“Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error *155 ñas neither filed a brief, nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause with directions, in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.” City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 254 Pac. 481; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34; Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich, 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

In this case the petition in error prays that the judgment rendered in the trial court be reversed, set aside, and held for naught and judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error and against the defendants in error, and we find, upon examination of the authorities cited by plaintiff in error, they reasonably support the contention of plaintiff in error, that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and direct it to vacate its former judgment and to grant a new trial in -said cause.

Note. — See 3 C. J. p. 1447, §1607.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1928 OK 139, 267 P. 835, 131 Okla. 154, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/causey-v-brown-okla-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack