Damaras v. Dance

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Damaras v. Dance

1933 OK 357, 22 P.2d 993, 164 Okla. 63, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 756

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 6, 1933

Docket24377

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1933 OK 357 (Damaras v. Dance) 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

Damaras v. Dance, 1933 OK 357, 22 P.2d 993, 164 Okla. 63, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 756 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was an action in replevin for a frigidaire or the value thereof in the sum of $152.17, the amount due on an installment contract. There was no defense at the trial of the cause other than some testimony introduced by the plaintiff in error, defendant below, relative to some payments.

It is not urged, nor even suggested, in the brief of plaintiff in error that he has a defense. A great deal of testimony is contained in the record dealing with certain payments and repairs, but on the appeal none of this testimony is mentioned, and no argument or claim of error is based thereon, and, as there is no assignment of error made of this or abstract of the testimony thereto, it will be held that that part of the cause has been abandoned,

The only other assignment of error is that, since the bill of particulars did not ask for a return of the property, but only for a money judgment, the court erred in entering a judgment for the possession of rlie property or. in the alternative, its value. Such allegations are not required, in view of the liberal rule relative to pleading in justice of peace court, in the absence of a» objection. This court has held an action in replevin can be brought upon the affidavit of plaintiff without a bill of particulars. Ackerman v. Chappell Hdw. Co., 41 Okla. 275, 137 P. 349.

A motion to dismiss has been filed on the ground that the appeal is without merit and for delay only. The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This was an action in replevin for a frigidaire or the value thereof in the sum of $152.17, the amount due on an installment contract. There was no defense at the trial of the cause other than some testimony introduced by the plaintiff in error, defendant below, relative to some payments.

It is not urged, nor even suggested, in the brief of plaintiff in error that he has a defense. A great deal of testimony is contained in the record dealing with certain payments and repairs, but on the appeal none of this testimony is mentioned, and no argument or claim of error is based thereon, and, as there is no assignment of error made of this or abstract of the testimony thereto, it will be held that that part of the cause has been abandoned,

The only other assignment of error is that, since the bill of particulars did not ask for a return of the property, but only for a money judgment, the court erred in entering a judgment for the possession of rlie property or. in the alternative, its value. Such allegations are not required, in view of the liberal rule relative to pleading in justice of peace court, in the absence of a» objection. This court has held an action in replevin can be brought upon the affidavit of plaintiff without a bill of particulars. Ackerman v. Chappell Hdw. Co., 41 Okla. 275, 137 P. 349.

A motion to dismiss has been filed on the ground that the appeal is without merit and for delay only. The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 357, 22 P.2d 993, 164 Okla. 63, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damaras-v-dance-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack