Finch v. Rose

1914 OK 14, 159 P. 513, 45 Okla. 397, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 498
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJanuary 13, 1914
Docket4603
StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK 14 (Finch v. Rose) 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
Finch v. Rose, 1914 OK 14, 159 P. 513, 45 Okla. 397, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 498 (Okla. 1914).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

Rule XXY of this court requires that the brief of the plaintiff in error:

«* * * shall contain an abstract or abridgement of the transcript, setting forth the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents upon which he relies, together with such other statements from the record as are necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented to this court for decision, so that no examination of the record itself need be made in this court.”

In this proceeding in error the action of the trial court in dismissing an appeal from a justice of the peace court on account of a defect in the appeal bond is sought to be reviewed. The body of the appeal bond is nowhere set out in plaintiff in error’s brief, and we are unable to determine whether there was error committed without examining the case-made. This court has repeatedly held that when the plaintiff in error fails to comply with this rule the proceeding will either be dismissed or the judgment of the lower court affirmed. (Ebey v. Krause, 35 Okla. 689; Seminole Township Co. v. Town of Seminole et al., Id., 554; Scoville et ux. v. Powell et al., 33 Okla. 446; Lawless v. Pitchford, Id., 633; Williams v. Haycraft, Id., 697; Fire Assn. of Philadelphia v .Bryant & Whistler et al., Id., 698; Arkansas Valley Nat. Bank v. Clark, 31 Okla. 413.)

The defendant in error in its brief raises the question as to the deficiency in the abstract or brief of the plaintiff in error, but no move on his part has been made to correct the same.

It follows that the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Arkansas Valley Nat. Bank v. Clark
1912 OK 3 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Scoville Et Ux. v. Powell
1912 OK 575 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Ebey v. Krause
1913 OK 172 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1914 OK 14, 159 P. 513, 45 Okla. 397, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finch-v-rose-okla-1914.