In Re Townsend

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

In Re Townsend

1917 OK 499, 168 P. 218, 67 Okla. 25, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 320

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 9, 1917

Docket3308

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1917 OK 499 (In Re Townsend) 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 Townsend, 1917 OK 499, 168 P. 218, 67 Okla. 25, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 320 (Okla. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

KANE, J.

Specifications and charges for disbarment were filed by Warren K. Snyder in the above-entitled matter on the J.4fh day of November, 1911. 'On the 23d day of January, 1912, the court ordered and id-judged that Hon. Frank Wells, of Oklahoma City, state of Oklahoma, be appointed as referee, in the above-entitled matter, with power to issue process, take evidence and hear, and settle pleadings, and make his report herein to this court in 60 days. Mr. Wells duly qualified as referee, and thereafter on the 13th day of March, 1912, filed the following report:

“Comes now Frank Wells, who was heretofore appointed referee in the above-entitled matter, and reports to the court that no service of process or notice of any kind has been had upon the said Samuel D. Townsend, and that, in the opinion of such referee, no proceedings of any kind can or should be had unless some kind of service is hereafter obtained. I return herewith original charges and copy of order appointing referee, and have forwarded a copy hereof to Mr. Warren K. Snyder, Oklahoma City, Okla., who makes such charges. Should service be hereby obtained within such time that the matter can be heard within the time limit of order appointing me, or upon any subsequent order, I will be glad to give the ^matter further consideration.”

The cause now comes on to be heard upon the report of the referee. An examination of the record discloses that up to this time no service or process or notice o£ any kind has been served upon the said Samuel D. Townsend. In view of this, and the nonaetion of the complainant after the matter was called to his attention by the referee, the report of the referee ought to be approved and the proceeding dismissed.

It is therefore ordered that the above-entitled proceeding be dismissed for want of prosecution, at the cost of the complainant.

All the Justices concur.

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

KANE, J.

Specifications and charges for disbarment were filed by Warren K. Snyder in the above-entitled matter on the J.4fh day of November, 1911. 'On the 23d day of January, 1912, the court ordered and id-judged that Hon. Frank Wells, of Oklahoma City, state of Oklahoma, be appointed as referee, in the above-entitled matter, with power to issue process, take evidence and hear, and settle pleadings, and make his report herein to this court in 60 days. Mr. Wells duly qualified as referee, and thereafter on the 13th day of March, 1912, filed the following report:

“Comes now Frank Wells, who was heretofore appointed referee in the above-entitled matter, and reports to the court that no service of process or notice of any kind has been had upon the said Samuel D. Townsend, and that, in the opinion of such referee, no proceedings of any kind can or should be had unless some kind of service is hereafter obtained. I return herewith original charges and copy of order appointing referee, and have forwarded a copy hereof to Mr. Warren K. Snyder, Oklahoma City, Okla., who makes such charges. Should service be hereby obtained within such time that the matter can be heard within the time limit of order appointing me, or upon any subsequent order, I will be glad to give the ^matter further consideration.”

The cause now comes on to be heard upon the report of the referee. An examination of the record discloses that up to this time no service or process or notice o£ any kind has been served upon the said Samuel D. Townsend. In view of this, and the nonaetion of the complainant after the matter was called to his attention by the referee, the report of the referee ought to be approved and the proceeding dismissed.

It is therefore ordered that the above-entitled proceeding be dismissed for want of prosecution, at the cost of the complainant.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK 499, 168 P. 218, 67 Okla. 25, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-townsend-okla-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack