Hodges v. Alexander

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hodges v. Alexander

1914 OK 616, 155 P. 241, 44 Okla. 442, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 721

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 8, 1914

Docket3901

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK 616 (Hodges v. Alexander) 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

Hodges v. Alexander, 1914 OK 616, 155 P. 241, 44 Okla. 442, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 721 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

There is but one assignment of error relied upon and that is “irregularity in the rendition of the judgment' in the trial court, which ordinary prudence could not have prevented.” The record shows that R. E. Turner, who was the leading counsel -in the case, had requested the county judge to continue all his cases, as he. would have to leave the state on account of the illness of his mother; that said request was granted by the county judge, and, relying upon the statement of the county judge, the said R. F. Turner was not present on the day of the trial, when judgment was rendered by default.

Defendant in error has failed to file a brief in this court in support of his judgment. The brief of plaintiff in error appeal’s *443 to sustain his contention that the trial court abused its discretion, and where plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and hied his brief as provided by the rules of this court, and there is no brief- filed by the defendant in error, nor reason given for its absence, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory on which the judgment below may be sustained; but, where the brief filed by the plaintiff in error appears reasonably to sustain the assignment of error, this court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Security Ins. Co. v. Droke, 40 Okla. 116, 136 Pac. 430.

The cause should be reversed and remanded, with direction to grant a new trial.

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

RITTENHOUSE, C.

There is but one assignment of error relied upon and that is “irregularity in the rendition of the judgment' in the trial court, which ordinary prudence could not have prevented.” The record shows that R. E. Turner, who was the leading counsel -in the case, had requested the county judge to continue all his cases, as he. would have to leave the state on account of the illness of his mother; that said request was granted by the county judge, and, relying upon the statement of the county judge, the said R. F. Turner was not present on the day of the trial, when judgment was rendered by default.

Defendant in error has failed to file a brief in this court in support of his judgment. The brief of plaintiff in error appeal’s *443 to sustain his contention that the trial court abused its discretion, and where plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and hied his brief as provided by the rules of this court, and there is no brief- filed by the defendant in error, nor reason given for its absence, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory on which the judgment below may be sustained; but, where the brief filed by the plaintiff in error appears reasonably to sustain the assignment of error, this court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Security Ins. Co. v. Droke, 40 Okla. 116, 136 Pac. 430.

The cause should be reversed and remanded, with direction to grant a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 616, 155 P. 241, 44 Okla. 442, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-alexander-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack