Hass v. McCampbell, City Clerk

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hass v. McCampbell, City Clerk

1910 OK 297, 111 P. 543, 27 Okla. 290, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 202

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 18, 1910

Docket490

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 1910 OK 297 (Hass v. McCampbell, City Clerk) 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

Hass v. McCampbell, City Clerk, 1910 OK 297, 111 P. 543, 27 Okla. 290, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 202 (Okla. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

TURNER, J.

This case was oiginally brought by J. P. Hass •ct al., plaintiffs in error, as plaintiffs, against. J. A. McCampbell, city clerk of the city of Anadarko, in the.district court- of Caddo •county to restrain him from issuing warrants and certifying to the county clerk of that county an assessment made by the city- coun *291 cil against certain property to pay for sidewalks constructed along its front. At the .commencement of the action a temporary restraining order issued which on October 9, 1908, was dissolved, to reverse which, after superseding'the order, plaintiffs on November 9, 1908, commenced proceedings in error in this court. After failing to observe rule 7 by serving their brief on counsel for defendant in error within 40 days after filing their petition in error, plaintiffs in error, on January 19, 1910, asked for and .obtained leave of this court to file said brief in 60 days. On their failure so to do defendant in error, on April 19, .1910, filed.motion to dismiss and served plaintiffs-in error with a copy. Eor some reason this motion was not passed on, although unopposed. On March' 16, 1910, plaintiffs in -errorwithdrew -the record in this cause from this court and failed to return the same until 'September 5, 1910, and on September 7, 1910, filed briefs herein..

This case was set for submission and was submitted on September 13, 1910, just six days after plaintiffs in error filed their briefs. Under the rules, defendant in error is entitled to 30 days after plaintiff in error files his briefs in which to file his briefs. It follows that, if plaintiffs in error’s briefs are now to be considered, which were filed without permission of the court, the final determination of this case must still be further delayed.

Defendant in error insists that, pursuant to his motion for failure to file briefs, this cause, should be dismissed. We think so too, and, as no excuse is attempted to be shown for this flagrant violation of rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi), this'petition in error is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

TURNER, J.

This case was oiginally brought by J. P. Hass •ct al., plaintiffs in error, as plaintiffs, against. J. A. McCampbell, city clerk of the city of Anadarko, in the.district court- of Caddo •county to restrain him from issuing warrants and certifying to the county clerk of that county an assessment made by the city- coun *291 cil against certain property to pay for sidewalks constructed along its front. At the .commencement of the action a temporary restraining order issued which on October 9, 1908, was dissolved, to reverse which, after superseding'the order, plaintiffs on November 9, 1908, commenced proceedings in error in this court. After failing to observe rule 7 by serving their brief on counsel for defendant in error within 40 days after filing their petition in error, plaintiffs in error, on January 19, 1910, asked for and .obtained leave of this court to file said brief in 60 days. On their failure so to do defendant in error, on April 19, .1910, filed.motion to dismiss and served plaintiffs-in error with a copy. Eor some reason this motion was not passed on, although unopposed. On March' 16, 1910, plaintiffs in -errorwithdrew -the record in this cause from this court and failed to return the same until 'September 5, 1910, and on September 7, 1910, filed briefs herein..

This case was set for submission and was submitted on September 13, 1910, just six days after plaintiffs in error filed their briefs. Under the rules, defendant in error is entitled to 30 days after plaintiff in error files his briefs in which to file his briefs. It follows that, if plaintiffs in error’s briefs are now to be considered, which were filed without permission of the court, the final determination of this case must still be further delayed.

Defendant in error insists that, pursuant to his motion for failure to file briefs, this cause, should be dismissed. We think so too, and, as no excuse is attempted to be shown for this flagrant violation of rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi), this'petition in error is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK 297, 111 P. 543, 27 Okla. 290, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hass-v-mccampbell-city-clerk-okla-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack