Foral v. Bogle

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Foral v. Bogle

1915 OK 25, 146 P. 706, 44 Okla. 805, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 753

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 12, 1915

Docket3894

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1915 OK 25 (Foral v. Bogle) 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

Foral v. Bogle, 1915 OK 25, 146 P. 706, 44 Okla. 805, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 753 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

SHARP, C.

The proceeding in error in this case is prosecuted by petition in error and case-made. May 23, 1912, counsel for defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss the same for the reason, among others, that the case-made fails to show that any notice was either served or waived of the time and place of settling the case-made, and that it did not show that the defendant was present at the time same was settled, or that he suggested amendments thereto, or had the opportunity to do so. An inspection of the record shows that it supports the claims made, and under the law there is no alternative but to sustain the motion.

Under this condition of the record, the case-made must be treated as a nullity, and the cause dismissed. First Nat. Bank of Collinsville v. Daniels, 26 Okla. 383, 108 Pac. 748; School Dist. No. 18, Creek County, v. Griffith et al., 33 Okla. 625, 127 Pac. 258; Flathers v. Flathers, 35 Okla. 342, 130 Pac. 134; Phillips v. Koogler, 35 Okla. 438, 130 Pac. 137; Jones v. Jones, 35 Okla. 453, 130 Pac. 139; Pain et al. v. Wylie et al., 35 Okla. 467, 131 Pac. 172; Moore v. Howard Merc. Co., 40 Okla. 491, 139 Pac. 524.

Numerous other grounds are set forth in the motion to dismiss, some, if not all, of which should be sustained. PIow-ever, it is unnecessary to prolong this opinion by setting them forth.

The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed.

By the Court': It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

SHARP, C.

The proceeding in error in this case is prosecuted by petition in error and case-made. May 23, 1912, counsel for defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss the same for the reason, among others, that the case-made fails to show that any notice was either served or waived of the time and place of settling the case-made, and that it did not show that the defendant was present at the time same was settled, or that he suggested amendments thereto, or had the opportunity to do so. An inspection of the record shows that it supports the claims made, and under the law there is no alternative but to sustain the motion.

Under this condition of the record, the case-made must be treated as a nullity, and the cause dismissed. First Nat. Bank of Collinsville v. Daniels, 26 Okla. 383, 108 Pac. 748; School Dist. No. 18, Creek County, v. Griffith et al., 33 Okla. 625, 127 Pac. 258; Flathers v. Flathers, 35 Okla. 342, 130 Pac. 134; Phillips v. Koogler, 35 Okla. 438, 130 Pac. 137; Jones v. Jones, 35 Okla. 453, 130 Pac. 139; Pain et al. v. Wylie et al., 35 Okla. 467, 131 Pac. 172; Moore v. Howard Merc. Co., 40 Okla. 491, 139 Pac. 524.

Numerous other grounds are set forth in the motion to dismiss, some, if not all, of which should be sustained. PIow-ever, it is unnecessary to prolong this opinion by setting them forth.

The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed.

By the Court': It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 25, 146 P. 706, 44 Okla. 805, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foral-v-bogle-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack