Dickson v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Dickson v. Taylor

1923 OK 783, 223 P. 145, 101 Okla. 119, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 20

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 16, 1923

Docket12090

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1923 OK 783 (Dickson v. Taylor) 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

Dickson v. Taylor, 1923 OK 783, 223 P. 145, 101 Okla. 119, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 20 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

MASON, J.

This case was tried in the district court of Beaver county on the 28th day of September, 1920. An appeal' was perfected by filing a petition in error with case-made attached in this court on the 2nd day of March, 1921.

■ lOh the 1st da.y of August, 1923, the -plaintiff in error filed his brief in thi-s court. The appearance docket shows due service upon the attorney for the defendants in error on the 1st day of August, 1923. The de-. fendants. in error have filed no brief, and no extension of time has been granted, and no- excuse is shown why brief has not been filed. The records of the clerk's office' show that the counsel for the defendants in • error withdrew the case-made on the 11th day of August,' 1923, and sail retain the same.

We have examined the errors assigned in the brief of the plaintiff in error and the abstract of the record upon which they are predicated, and the grounds urged for a reversal appear to be well taken.

Where such a situation is presented as has arisen in this case, we are required to search the record for reasons why the judgment should be upheld, neither-are we required to search for authorities in support of the judgment appealed from.

Upon the authorities of Miles v. Bird, 41 Okla. 428, 138 Pac. 789; Walker v. Robinson, 66 Okla. 56, 166 Pac. 1042, the judgment appealed from will be reversed in accordance with ihe prayer of the petition in error, and the cause remanded.

JOHNSON, O. J., McNEILL, V. O. J.. and KANE. KENNAMER, COCHRAN, and HARRISON, JJ., concur.

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

MASON, J.

This case was tried in the district court of Beaver county on the 28th day of September, 1920. An appeal' was perfected by filing a petition in error with case-made attached in this court on the 2nd day of March, 1921.

■ lOh the 1st da.y of August, 1923, the -plaintiff in error filed his brief in thi-s court. The appearance docket shows due service upon the attorney for the defendants in error on the 1st day of August, 1923. The de-. fendants. in error have filed no brief, and no extension of time has been granted, and no- excuse is shown why brief has not been filed. The records of the clerk's office' show that the counsel for the defendants in • error withdrew the case-made on the 11th day of August,' 1923, and sail retain the same.

We have examined the errors assigned in the brief of the plaintiff in error and the abstract of the record upon which they are predicated, and the grounds urged for a reversal appear to be well taken.

Where such a situation is presented as has arisen in this case, we are required to search the record for reasons why the judgment should be upheld, neither-are we required to search for authorities in support of the judgment appealed from.

Upon the authorities of Miles v. Bird, 41 Okla. 428, 138 Pac. 789; Walker v. Robinson, 66 Okla. 56, 166 Pac. 1042, the judgment appealed from will be reversed in accordance with ihe prayer of the petition in error, and the cause remanded.

JOHNSON, O. J., McNEILL, V. O. J.. and KANE. KENNAMER, COCHRAN, and HARRISON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 783, 223 P. 145, 101 Okla. 119, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickson-v-taylor-okla-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack