City of Enid v. Davis

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

City of Enid v. Davis

1922 OK 152, 206 P. 816, 86 Okla. 100, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 113

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 2, 1922

Docket10594

StatusPublished

This text of 1922 OK 152 (City of Enid v. Davis) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK 152, 206 P. 816, 86 Okla. 100, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-enid-v-davis-okla-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack