In Re Storm's Estate

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

In Re Storm's Estate

1933 OK 21, 18 P.2d 515, 161 Okla. 280, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 450

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 24, 1933

DocketNo. 21103

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK 21 (In Re Storm's 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 Storm's Estate, 1933 OK 21, 18 P.2d 515, 161 Okla. 280, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 450 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff in error lodged his appeal in this court on February 19, 1930, from a judgment entered by the district court of Ottawa county, Okla., protesting the approval of a final settlement Plaintiff in error has duly filed his brief in accordance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has failed to comply with the rules of this court, or to excuse his failure so to do.

This court has uniformly held in the case of City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481, that:

"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 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, with directions in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error."

We have examined the pleadings and the brief of plaintiff in error, and the authorities cited therein reasonably support the assignments of error. Under the holdings of this court, plaintiff in error is entitled to have this cause reversed, with directions to the trial court to set aside the judgment and order appealed from in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error, and it is so ordered.

Note. — See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 176; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 360.

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

Plaintiff in error lodged his appeal in this court on February 19, 1930, from a judgment entered by the district court of Ottawa county, Okla., protesting the approval of a final settlement Plaintiff in error has duly filed his brief in accordance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has failed to comply with the rules of this court, or to excuse his failure so to do.

This court has uniformly held in the case of City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481, that:

"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 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, with directions in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error."

We have examined the pleadings and the brief of plaintiff in error, and the authorities cited therein reasonably support the assignments of error. Under the holdings of this court, plaintiff in error is entitled to have this cause reversed, with directions to the trial court to set aside the judgment and order appealed from in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error, and it is so ordered.

Note. — See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 176; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 360.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 21, 18 P.2d 515, 161 Okla. 280, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-storms-estate-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack