Ft. Smith & Western Ry. Co. v. Krallman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Ft. Smith & Western Ry. Co. v. Krallman

1931 OK 42, 296 P. 400, 147 Okla. 220, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 751

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 17, 1931

Docket19526

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK 42 (Ft. Smith & Western Ry. Co. v. Krallman) 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

Ft. Smith & Western Ry. Co. v. Krallman, 1931 OK 42, 296 P. 400, 147 Okla. 220, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 751 (Okla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Okfuskee county rendered in an action wherein plaintiff in error was defendant. Plain *221 tiff in error in due lime served and filed its brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error lias failed to file any brief or to otherwise plead the merits of this cause in this court, nor has he offered an/ excuse for his failure to do so.

‘'Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in' compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment oí the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed, appear reasonably to sustain the assignment of error, reverse the cause, with directions,- in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.” City National Bank v. Coatney. 122 Okla. 233, 253 Pac. 481.

In this case the petition in error prays that the judgment rendered in the trial court be reversed and that the plaintiff be restored to all rights lost by the rendition of such judgment; and we find upon examination. the authorities cited by plaintiff in error reasonably support the contention of plaintiff in error, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the lower court and direct it to vacate its former judgment and to grant a new trial in said cause.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Okfuskee county rendered in an action wherein plaintiff in error was defendant. Plain *221 tiff in error in due lime served and filed its brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error lias failed to file any brief or to otherwise plead the merits of this cause in this court, nor has he offered an/ excuse for his failure to do so.

‘'Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in' compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment oí the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed, appear reasonably to sustain the assignment of error, reverse the cause, with directions,- in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.” City National Bank v. Coatney. 122 Okla. 233, 253 Pac. 481.

In this case the petition in error prays that the judgment rendered in the trial court be reversed and that the plaintiff be restored to all rights lost by the rendition of such judgment; and we find upon examination. the authorities cited by plaintiff in error reasonably support the contention of plaintiff in error, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the lower court and direct it to vacate its former judgment and to grant a new trial in said cause.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK 42, 296 P. 400, 147 Okla. 220, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ft-smith-western-ry-co-v-krallman-okla-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack