Jones v. Sabine Oil & Marketing Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Jones v. Sabine Oil & Marketing Co.

1924 OK 724, 229 P. 137, 100 Okla. 256, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 992

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 16, 1924

Docket13461

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1924 OK 724 (Jones v. Sabine Oil & Marketing 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

Jones v. Sabine Oil & Marketing Co., 1924 OK 724, 229 P. 137, 100 Okla. 256, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 992 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

ESTES, C.

Plaintiff in error filed his brief herein on the 6th day of February, 1921. No brief has been filed by defendant in error nor has any reason been assigned for failure so to do. ' Under the well known rule of this court, when the brief of plaintiff in error appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, this court will not search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained.

We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error and find the same reasonably sustains the assignments of prejudicial error. The-trial court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of defendant in error, and against plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, on the theory that there was no evidence in favor of plaintiff on which the cause could be submitted to the jury. As shown by brief of plaintiff in error, the cause should have been submitted to the jury. The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

ESTES, C.

Plaintiff in error filed his brief herein on the 6th day of February, 1921. No brief has been filed by defendant in error nor has any reason been assigned for failure so to do. ' Under the well known rule of this court, when the brief of plaintiff in error appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, this court will not search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained.

We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error and find the same reasonably sustains the assignments of prejudicial error. The-trial court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of defendant in error, and against plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, on the theory that there was no evidence in favor of plaintiff on which the cause could be submitted to the jury. As shown by brief of plaintiff in error, the cause should have been submitted to the jury. The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 724, 229 P. 137, 100 Okla. 256, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-sabine-oil-marketing-co-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack