Cox v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Cox v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co.

1915 OK 520, 150 P. 465, 50 Okla. 703, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 481

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 29, 1915

Docket4638

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1915 OK 520 (Cox v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co.) 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

Cox v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co., 1915 OK 520, 150 P. 465, 50 Okla. 703, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 481 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

This is an appeal from the county court of Stephens county. There was judgment for plaintiffs in error, and a motion for new trial was sustained, from which ruling sustaining the motion for new trial plaintiffs in error have properly perfected an appeal to this court. They have served and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered *704 any excuse for its failure to do so. We have examined the record, and the brief appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, and under the numerous authorities of this court, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained, but may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiffs in error. Phillips v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 99, 118 Pac. 371.

The judgment is therefore 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

RITTENHOUSE, C.

This is an appeal from the county court of Stephens county. There was judgment for plaintiffs in error, and a motion for new trial was sustained, from which ruling sustaining the motion for new trial plaintiffs in error have properly perfected an appeal to this court. They have served and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered *704 any excuse for its failure to do so. We have examined the record, and the brief appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, and under the numerous authorities of this court, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained, but may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiffs in error. Phillips v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 99, 118 Pac. 371.

The judgment is therefore reversed and remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 520, 150 P. 465, 50 Okla. 703, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-dempster-mill-mfg-co-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack