Duke v. City of Checotah Ex Rel. Hall

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Duke v. City of Checotah Ex Rel. Hall

1943 OK 251, 146 P.2d 120, 193 Okla. 549, 1943 Okla. LEXIS 448

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 22, 1943

DocketNo. 31405.

StatusPublished

This text of 1943 OK 251 (Duke v. City of Checotah Ex Rel. Hall) 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

Duke v. City of Checotah Ex Rel. Hall, 1943 OK 251, 146 P.2d 120, 193 Okla. 549, 1943 Okla. LEXIS 448 (Okla. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Various defendants appear herein as plaintiffs in error appealing from an adverse judgment of the city of Checotah ex rel. Fletcher Hall et al., obtained in the district court.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the plaintiff in error, M. Duke, failed to give notice in open court of the intention to appeal within ten days as provided by 12 O. S. 1941 § 954.

This court ordered M. Duke to respond to the motion to dismiss and none has been filed. In French v. Bragg, 177 Okla. 43, 55 P. 2d 953, we held that where a motion to dismiss has been filed and the same is supported by argument and authorities which reasonably sustain the lack of jurisdiction of this court, it is not the duty of this court .to search for some theory upon which to sustain the appeal, but that it may in its discretion dismiss the appeal. We have examined the argument and authorities cited by the defendant in error and they reasonably support the motion to dismiss.

The appeal of M. Duke is therefore dismissed.

CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, .and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. DAVISON, J., absent.

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

PER CURIAM.

Various defendants appear herein as plaintiffs in error appealing from an adverse judgment of the city of Checotah ex rel. Fletcher Hall et al., obtained in the district court.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the plaintiff in error, M. Duke, failed to give notice in open court of the intention to appeal within ten days as provided by 12 O. S. 1941 § 954.

This court ordered M. Duke to respond to the motion to dismiss and none has been filed. In French v. Bragg, 177 Okla. 43, 55 P. 2d 953, we held that where a motion to dismiss has been filed and the same is supported by argument and authorities which reasonably sustain the lack of jurisdiction of this court, it is not the duty of this court .to search for some theory upon which to sustain the appeal, but that it may in its discretion dismiss the appeal. We have examined the argument and authorities cited by the defendant in error and they reasonably support the motion to dismiss.

The appeal of M. Duke is therefore dismissed.

CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, .and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. DAVISON, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1943 OK 251, 146 P.2d 120, 193 Okla. 549, 1943 Okla. LEXIS 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duke-v-city-of-checotah-ex-rel-hall-okla-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack