City of Enid v. Davis

1922 OK 152, 206 P. 816, 86 Okla. 100, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 113
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided May 2, 1922·No. 10594·Published

Opinion

PITCHFORD, V. C. J.

On the 10th day of December, 1918, William Davis obtained judgment in the district court of Garfield county against the city of Enid in the sum of $2,500 for personal injuries caused by reason of the negligence of the city to maintain a sidewalk.

From the judgment so rendered, an appeal to this court has, been prosecuted by the city. The petition in error, with case-máde, was filed in this court on May 8, 1019. The cause was submitted in its regular order on February 14, 1922, and plaintiff in error was givqn' 20 days from that date to file briefs. This time having expired, and no briefs having -been filed, and no further extension of tim-a requested, the •appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution, as authorized by rule N. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vi). Hornady et al. v. Bank of Commerce of Sapulpa et al., 79 Okla. 261, 192 Pac. 1098; Wright et al. v. Waggoner et al., 80 Okla. 56, 193 Pac. 997.

'HARRISON, O.' J.," and JOHNSON, MILLER, and NICHOLSON, JJ., concur.

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

City of Enid v. Davis, 1922 OK 152, 206 P. 816, 86 Okla. 100, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 113 (Okla. 1922).

1922 OK 152 (City of Enid v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hornaday v. Bank of Commerce of Sapulpa
1920 OK 329 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)