Key v. Key

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Key v. Key

1937 OK 329, 68 P.2d 497, 180 Okla. 138, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 592

Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided May 25, 1937·No. No. 27593.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below was given a judgment for divorce and by the order of the court the defendant was directed to pay certain alimony in support of the minor child, together with attorney fees, and by a motion duly verified, defendant in error alleges that the order has not been complied with. Under date of April 13, 1937, this court required the plaintiff in error to respond to the motion to dismiss and no response has been filed nor any excuse offered for such failure. Under the rule announced in Philpott v. Philpott, 164 Okla. 266, 23 P. (2d) 641, the appeal should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

OSBORN, O. J., BAYLESS, V. O. J., and BUSBY, PHELPS, and HURST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below was given a judgment for divorce and by the order of the court the defendant was directed to pay certain alimony in support of the minor child, together with attorney fees, and by a motion duly verified, defendant in error alleges that the order has not been complied with. Under date of April 13, 1937, this court required the plaintiff in error to respond to the motion to dismiss and no response has been filed nor any excuse offered for such failure. Under the rule announced in Philpott v. Philpott, 164 Okla. 266, 23 P. (2d) 641, the appeal should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

OSBORN, O. J., BAYLESS, V. O. J., and BUSBY, PHELPS, and HURST, JJ., concur.

Key v. Key, 1937 OK 329, 68 P.2d 497, 180 Okla. 138, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 592 (Okla. 1937).

Pincite

1937 OK 329 (Key v. Key) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related