Eureka Fire Hose Mfg. Co. v. Incorporated Town of Stonewall

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Eureka Fire Hose Mfg. Co. v. Incorporated Town of Stonewall

1922 OK 199, 207 P. 562, 86 Okla. 198, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 150

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 6, 1922

Docket10735

StatusPublished

This text of 1922 OK 199 (Eureka Fire Hose Mfg. Co. v. Incorporated Town of Stonewall) 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

Eureka Fire Hose Mfg. Co. v. Incorporated Town of Stonewall, 1922 OK 199, 207 P. 562, 86 Okla. 198, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 150 (Okla. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLER, J.

This action was commenced in the district court of Pontotoc county, Okla., by the Eureka Fire Hose Manufacturing Company, as plaintiff, against the Incorporated Town of Stonewall, as defendant, to recover on a contract for goods, wares, and merchandise sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. Issues were joined and the cause submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff. The plaintiff saved •all necessary exceptions; gave notice of appeal and appears here as plaintiff in error, but for convenience the parties will be referred t,o as they appeared in the lower court.

This case was set for submission on the regular printed docket of this court for Tuesday, April 18, 1922. On March 7, 1922, on application of the plaintiff, it was given 20 days in which to file a brief and the defendant given 20 days from the service of plaintiff’s brief to answer. On April 18, 1922, when the case was reached on the call of the docket, i't was submitted on briefs to be filed. ■ The plaintiff failed to file its brief, and on May 12, 1922, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the plaintiff had failed to comply with rule No. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vij. This rule is set out in full in Re Seizure One Chevrolet, Baby Grand Auto v. State of Oklahoma, 82 Okla. 202, 200 Pac. 144.

The motion to dismisss was duly served on the plaintiff on May 11, 1922. The plaintiff has failed to respond to said motion or exercise its failure to file brief herein, or show any cause why said motion to dismiss should not be sustained and the appeal dismissed; therefore, we think said motion to dismiss should be sustained.

Under the last, paragraph of said rule No. 7, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

KANE, JOHNSON, ELTING, and NICHOLSON, JJ., concur.

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

MILLER, J.

This action was commenced in the district court of Pontotoc county, Okla., by the Eureka Fire Hose Manufacturing Company, as plaintiff, against the Incorporated Town of Stonewall, as defendant, to recover on a contract for goods, wares, and merchandise sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. Issues were joined and the cause submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff. The plaintiff saved •all necessary exceptions; gave notice of appeal and appears here as plaintiff in error, but for convenience the parties will be referred t,o as they appeared in the lower court.

This case was set for submission on the regular printed docket of this court for Tuesday, April 18, 1922. On March 7, 1922, on application of the plaintiff, it was given 20 days in which to file a brief and the defendant given 20 days from the service of plaintiff’s brief to answer. On April 18, 1922, when the case was reached on the call of the docket, i't was submitted on briefs to be filed. ■ The plaintiff failed to file its brief, and on May 12, 1922, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the plaintiff had failed to comply with rule No. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vij. This rule is set out in full in Re Seizure One Chevrolet, Baby Grand Auto v. State of Oklahoma, 82 Okla. 202, 200 Pac. 144.

The motion to dismisss was duly served on the plaintiff on May 11, 1922. The plaintiff has failed to respond to said motion or exercise its failure to file brief herein, or show any cause why said motion to dismiss should not be sustained and the appeal dismissed; therefore, we think said motion to dismiss should be sustained.

Under the last, paragraph of said rule No. 7, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

KANE, JOHNSON, ELTING, and NICHOLSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK 199, 207 P. 562, 86 Okla. 198, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eureka-fire-hose-mfg-co-v-incorporated-town-of-stonewall-okla-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack