Hobson v. Hall

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hobson v. Hall

1954 OK 41, 267 P.2d 611, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 452

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 2, 1954

Docket34872

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1954 OK 41 (Hobson v. Hall) 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

Hobson v. Hall, 1954 OK 41, 267 P.2d 611, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 452 (Okla. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Warren G. Hobson, has appealed from an order overruling motion for a new trial and from a judgment entered in favor of Cleveland C. Hall, defendant in error, on an instructed verdict, and on February 28, 1951, filed his brief. .The brief and the authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of the petition in error. The defendant in error has filed no brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances as held by this court in Durham v. Brown, 164 Okl. 139, 24 P.2d 295, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon which to sustain the action of the trial court, but the court may in its discretion reverse and remand the cause with directions.

The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to vacate the judgment entered for the plaintiff in the trial court and to sustain the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

HALLEY, C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, O’NEAL, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur. '

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

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Warren G. Hobson, has appealed from an order overruling motion for a new trial and from a judgment entered in favor of Cleveland C. Hall, defendant in error, on an instructed verdict, and on February 28, 1951, filed his brief. .The brief and the authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of the petition in error. The defendant in error has filed no brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances as held by this court in Durham v. Brown, 164 Okl. 139, 24 P.2d 295, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon which to sustain the action of the trial court, but the court may in its discretion reverse and remand the cause with directions.

The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to vacate the judgment entered for the plaintiff in the trial court and to sustain the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

HALLEY, C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, O’NEAL, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1954 OK 41, 267 P.2d 611, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobson-v-hall-okla-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack