In Re Childs' Estate

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

In Re Childs' Estate

1922 OK 281, 209 P. 403, 87 Okla. 83, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 229

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 26, 1922

DocketNo. 10831

StatusPublished

This text of 1922 OK 281 (In Re Childs' Estate) 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

In Re Childs' Estate, 1922 OK 281, 209 P. 403, 87 Okla. 83, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 229 (Okla. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Okmulgee county, denying probate of the last will and testament of Lucy Childs, deceased, which judgment affirmed the judgment of the county court of said county.

Plaintiff in error has served and filed her brief, but no brief has been filed by the defendants in error. It is a well-established rule in this jurisdiction that where the plaintiff in error has served and filed his 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, the court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Lawton Nat. Bank v. Ulrich, 81 Okla. 159,197 P. 167; In re Estate of Enos Nichols, Deceased, R.W. Cook, Adm'r, v. Vinson, 86 Okla. 181, 207 P. 93.

The brief of the plaintiff in error and the authorities therein cited appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, therefore the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

KANE, JOHNSON, McNEILL, MILLER, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

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

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Okmulgee county, denying probate of the last will and testament of Lucy Childs, deceased, which judgment affirmed the judgment of the county court of said county.

Plaintiff in error has served and filed her brief, but no brief has been filed by the defendants in error. It is a well-established rule in this jurisdiction that where the plaintiff in error has served and filed his 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, the court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Lawton Nat. Bank v. Ulrich, 81 Okla. 159,197 P. 167; In re Estate of Enos Nichols, Deceased, R.W. Cook, Adm'r, v. Vinson, 86 Okla. 181, 207 P. 93.

The brief of the plaintiff in error and the authorities therein cited appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, therefore the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

KANE, JOHNSON, McNEILL, MILLER, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK 281, 209 P. 403, 87 Okla. 83, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-childs-estate-okla-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack