Continental Creamery Co. v. La Flore

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Continental Creamery Co. v. La Flore

1916 OK 684, 158 P. 435, 59 Okla. 186, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1175

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 20, 1916

Docket7573

StatusPublished

This text of 1916 OK 684 (Continental Creamery Co. v. La Flore) 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

Continental Creamery Co. v. La Flore, 1916 OK 684, 158 P. 435, 59 Okla. 186, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1175 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

EDWARDS. C.

This was an action by the Continental Creamery Company. a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Chas. La Flore. Defendant, upon a promissory note dated July 10, 1912. in the sum of $291.20. *187 Tlie answer of defendant was a general denial and an averment that the plaintiff, through its agent, Coleman ,T. Ward, had made certain agreements and representations which had not been complied with, and that the note was without consideration. The defendant further filed a counterclaim, alleging damages by reason of the failure of the said agent to comply with his alleged agreements. and praying judgment against the plaintiff in the sum of $295. The case was tried to a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of defendant in the sum of $97.55; the defendant remitted $30 of said amount, and judgment was rendered for $67.50. The case, within the time fixed and allowed by the court, was duly appealed to this court.

The brief of plaintiff in error appears to sustain its contention that the trial court erred in admitting incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial testimony on the part of the defendant, and in failing to give certain instructions requested by the plaintiff and in giving other instructions over the. objection of plaintiff. The plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed its brief, as provided by the rules of this court, and no brief has been filed by the defendant in error nor any reason given for failure to file the same. This court is not required (o search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained, but will reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error, according to the rule announced in Midland Elevator Co. v. Harrah, 44 Okla. 154, 143 Pac 1168: Bryan v. State. 44 Okla. 653, 146 Pac. 32: Taylor v. Smith, 44 Okla. 403, 144 Pac. 1028.

The case should therefore be reversed and remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

EDWARDS. C.

This was an action by the Continental Creamery Company. a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Chas. La Flore. Defendant, upon a promissory note dated July 10, 1912. in the sum of $291.20. *187 Tlie answer of defendant was a general denial and an averment that the plaintiff, through its agent, Coleman ,T. Ward, had made certain agreements and representations which had not been complied with, and that the note was without consideration. The defendant further filed a counterclaim, alleging damages by reason of the failure of the said agent to comply with his alleged agreements. and praying judgment against the plaintiff in the sum of $295. The case was tried to a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of defendant in the sum of $97.55; the defendant remitted $30 of said amount, and judgment was rendered for $67.50. The case, within the time fixed and allowed by the court, was duly appealed to this court.

The brief of plaintiff in error appears to sustain its contention that the trial court erred in admitting incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial testimony on the part of the defendant, and in failing to give certain instructions requested by the plaintiff and in giving other instructions over the. objection of plaintiff. The plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed its brief, as provided by the rules of this court, and no brief has been filed by the defendant in error nor any reason given for failure to file the same. This court is not required (o search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained, but will reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error, according to the rule announced in Midland Elevator Co. v. Harrah, 44 Okla. 154, 143 Pac 1168: Bryan v. State. 44 Okla. 653, 146 Pac. 32: Taylor v. Smith, 44 Okla. 403, 144 Pac. 1028.

The case should therefore be reversed and remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 684, 158 P. 435, 59 Okla. 186, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-creamery-co-v-la-flore-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack