Johnson v. R. C. Mills Produce Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Johnson v. R. C. Mills Produce Co.

1933 OK 184, 21 P.2d 1053, 163 Okla. 121, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 650

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 21, 1933

Docket23423

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1933 OK 184 (Johnson v. R. C. Mills Produce Co.) 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

Johnson v. R. C. Mills Produce Co., 1933 OK 184, 21 P.2d 1053, 163 Okla. 121, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 650 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in replevin in which the answer admits the execution of the note and mortgage sued upon, but alleges a contemporaneous oral agreement that same would not bo foreclosed.

There is no allegation of fraud, nor that defendant teas in any way deceived or damaged by the act of the plaintiff.

On the 15th day of September, 1931. the court entered judgment upon the pleadings for tile plaintiff.

*122 The appeal was filed herein March 14, 1831, and on the 27th day of May, 1932, a motion to dismiss iwas leveled at the appeal based upon the fact and the law that the appeal is upon its face without merit and for delay only. No response has been filed to this motion to dismiss.

This court has consistently held that where, from an examination of the record and the brief of plaintiff in error, the appeal appears to he frivolous and without merit and for the purpose of delay only; and upon those grounds the defendant in error files his motion to dismiss, to which motion no response is filed by the plaintiff in error or further notice taken thereof or excuse given for failure to respond thereto, this court may in its discretion dismiss the appeal as frivolous and without merit.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in replevin in which the answer admits the execution of the note and mortgage sued upon, but alleges a contemporaneous oral agreement that same would not bo foreclosed.

There is no allegation of fraud, nor that defendant teas in any way deceived or damaged by the act of the plaintiff.

On the 15th day of September, 1931. the court entered judgment upon the pleadings for tile plaintiff.

*122 The appeal was filed herein March 14, 1831, and on the 27th day of May, 1932, a motion to dismiss iwas leveled at the appeal based upon the fact and the law that the appeal is upon its face without merit and for delay only. No response has been filed to this motion to dismiss.

This court has consistently held that where, from an examination of the record and the brief of plaintiff in error, the appeal appears to he frivolous and without merit and for the purpose of delay only; and upon those grounds the defendant in error files his motion to dismiss, to which motion no response is filed by the plaintiff in error or further notice taken thereof or excuse given for failure to respond thereto, this court may in its discretion dismiss the appeal as frivolous and without merit.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 184, 21 P.2d 1053, 163 Okla. 121, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-r-c-mills-produce-co-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack