El Reno Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. L. M. Rumsey Mfg. Co.

1915 OK 323, 149 P. 1193, 149 P. 1143, 47 Okla. 429, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 165
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 18, 1915
Docket4777
StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK 323 (El Reno Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. L. M. Rumsey 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
El Reno Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. L. M. Rumsey Mfg. Co., 1915 OK 323, 149 P. 1193, 149 P. 1143, 47 Okla. 429, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 165 (Okla. 1915).

Opinion

KANE, C. J.

This cause comes on for hearing upon a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant in error, upon the ground that “the case-made before the court shows on its face that there was no issue made by the defendants below by the answer filed to plaintiff’s cause of action, and that it *430 is apparent from the assignments of error and the plead ings as set forth herein that said cause was appealed to this court for delay.” The motion, to dismiss is unresisted, and, as the record seems to justify the criticism of counsel for defendant in error, the motion to dismiss must be sustained. Releford et al. v. State, 45 Okla. 433, 146 Pac. 27.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Releford v. State
1915 OK 60 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1915 OK 323, 149 P. 1193, 149 P. 1143, 47 Okla. 429, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/el-reno-vitrified-brick-tile-co-v-l-m-rumsey-mfg-co-okla-1915.