Cline v. Foster

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Cline v. Foster

1933 OK 16, 18 P.2d 513, 161 Okla. 285, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 457

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 24, 1933

Docket22385

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK 16 (Cline v. Foster) 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

Cline v. Foster, 1933 OK 16, 18 P.2d 513, 161 Okla. 285, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 457 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

D. E. Cline, defendant below. perfected his appeal May 26, 1931, from a judgment rendered in the trial court, and on September 4, 1931, filed his brief. Defendant in error was granted his last of numerous extensions to file brief April 12, 1932, and has wholly failed to excuse his delay or failure to file brief. Under the rule of City National Blank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481, and numerous decisions, this court need not search the record to sustain the judgment of the trial court, but where the authorities cited reasonably tend to support the alleged errors, may reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. The case is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to vacate the judgment for the plaintiff and enter a judgment for the defendant.

Note.—See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 176; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 360.

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

PER CURIAM.

D. E. Cline, defendant below. perfected his appeal May 26, 1931, from a judgment rendered in the trial court, and on September 4, 1931, filed his brief. Defendant in error was granted his last of numerous extensions to file brief April 12, 1932, and has wholly failed to excuse his delay or failure to file brief. Under the rule of City National Blank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481, and numerous decisions, this court need not search the record to sustain the judgment of the trial court, but where the authorities cited reasonably tend to support the alleged errors, may reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. The case is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to vacate the judgment for the plaintiff and enter a judgment for the defendant.

Note.—See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 176; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 360.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 16, 18 P.2d 513, 161 Okla. 285, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cline-v-foster-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack