Frick Reid Supply Co. v. Andrews

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Frick Reid Supply Co. v. Andrews

1931 OK 147, 298 P. 274, 148 Okla. 218, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 856

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 21, 1931

Docket19798, 19799

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK 147 (Frick Reid Supply Co. v. Andrews) 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

Frick Reid Supply Co. v. Andrews, 1931 OK 147, 298 P. 274, 148 Okla. 218, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 856 (Okla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgments of the district court of Kay county in actions wherein the plaintiffs in error were plaintiff's. These causes are consolidated in this court under No. 19799. The plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in this cause as required by the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has failed to file brief or offer any excuse for his failure to do so. We have examined the brief of the plaintiff in error, and its assignments of error are reasonably supported by the authorities ’ cited therein. Under the oft-repeated holdings of this court we are not required to brief a case on behalf of the defendant in error or to search the record to find some reason why the judgment appealed from should be sustained, Home State Bank v. Oklahoma State Bank. 51 Okla. 389, 151 Pac. 1044; Love Motor Co. v. Croskell, 141 Okla. 139, 284 Pac. 297. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgments of the district court of Kay county in actions wherein the plaintiffs in error were plaintiff's. These causes are consolidated in this court under No. 19799. The plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in this cause as required by the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has failed to file brief or offer any excuse for his failure to do so. We have examined the brief of the plaintiff in error, and its assignments of error are reasonably supported by the authorities ’ cited therein. Under the oft-repeated holdings of this court we are not required to brief a case on behalf of the defendant in error or to search the record to find some reason why the judgment appealed from should be sustained, Home State Bank v. Oklahoma State Bank. 51 Okla. 389, 151 Pac. 1044; Love Motor Co. v. Croskell, 141 Okla. 139, 284 Pac. 297. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK 147, 298 P. 274, 148 Okla. 218, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frick-reid-supply-co-v-andrews-okla-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack