Jones v. Jones

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Jones v. Jones

1913 OK 103, 130 P. 139, 130 P. 199, 35 Okla. 453, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 608

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 11, 1913

Docket3530

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1913 OK 103 (Jones v. Jones) 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

Jones v. Jones, 1913 OK 103, 130 P. 139, 130 P. 199, 35 Okla. 453, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 608 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

*454 DUNN, J.

Counsel for defendant in error have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, for the reasons, among others, that it does not appear from the record or the purported case-made, cr otherwise, that the defendant in error was present, either personally or by counsel, at the settlement, or that notice of the time and place thereof was served or waived, or what amendments suggested, if any, were allowed or disallowed by the court. These grounds are sufficient, and require the dismissal of the' case-made, if true. An inspection of the record shows that it supports the claims made, and under the law there is no alternative but to sustain the motion. The proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed. See Cobb & Co. et al. v. Hancock, 31 Okla. 42, 119 Pac. 627; Richardson v. Thompson, 33 Okla. 120, 124 Pac. 64; First Nat. Bank of Collinsville v. Daniels, 26 Okla. 383, 108 Pac. 748, and cases therein cited.

PIAYES, C. J., and KANE and TURNER, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.

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

*454 DUNN, J.

Counsel for defendant in error have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, for the reasons, among others, that it does not appear from the record or the purported case-made, cr otherwise, that the defendant in error was present, either personally or by counsel, at the settlement, or that notice of the time and place thereof was served or waived, or what amendments suggested, if any, were allowed or disallowed by the court. These grounds are sufficient, and require the dismissal of the' case-made, if true. An inspection of the record shows that it supports the claims made, and under the law there is no alternative but to sustain the motion. The proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed. See Cobb & Co. et al. v. Hancock, 31 Okla. 42, 119 Pac. 627; Richardson v. Thompson, 33 Okla. 120, 124 Pac. 64; First Nat. Bank of Collinsville v. Daniels, 26 Okla. 383, 108 Pac. 748, and cases therein cited.

PIAYES, C. J., and KANE and TURNER, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 103, 130 P. 139, 130 P. 199, 35 Okla. 453, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-jones-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack