City of Mangum v. Todd

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

City of Mangum v. Todd

1918 OK 497, 175 P. 197, 71 Okla. 59, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 861

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 27, 1918

Docket9837

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1918 OK 497 (City of Mangum v. Todd) 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 Mangum v. Todd, 1918 OK 497, 175 P. 197, 71 Okla. 59, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 861 (Okla. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

KANE, J.

This cause comes on to be heard up::n motion to dismiss appeal upon thej following grounds: (1) Because said case-made was not attested by the clerk of the court and the seal of the court thereto attached as required by the order of the court and by section 5242, Revised Laws 1910, as amended by the act approved March 21, 1917 (Session Laws 1917, p. 401, c. 218). (2) Because said case-made was not filejd with the papers in said case as required by section 5242 Revised Laws 1910, as amended by the act approved March 21, 1917 (Session Laws 1917, p. 401).,

This motion is accompanied by a brief containing the citation of authorities which seem to sustain the grounds for dismissal stated therein. As there is no response on the part of counsei'lfor plaintiff in error, and the authorities cited seem to be in point, the motion to dismiss appeal will be sustained.

All the Justices concur.

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

KANE, J.

This cause comes on to be heard up::n motion to dismiss appeal upon thej following grounds: (1) Because said case-made was not attested by the clerk of the court and the seal of the court thereto attached as required by the order of the court and by section 5242, Revised Laws 1910, as amended by the act approved March 21, 1917 (Session Laws 1917, p. 401, c. 218). (2) Because said case-made was not filejd with the papers in said case as required by section 5242 Revised Laws 1910, as amended by the act approved March 21, 1917 (Session Laws 1917, p. 401).,

This motion is accompanied by a brief containing the citation of authorities which seem to sustain the grounds for dismissal stated therein. As there is no response on the part of counsei'lfor plaintiff in error, and the authorities cited seem to be in point, the motion to dismiss appeal will be sustained.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK 497, 175 P. 197, 71 Okla. 59, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-mangum-v-todd-okla-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack