King v. Palmer

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

King v. Palmer

162 P. 821, 62 Okla. 299, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 964

Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided December 19, 1916·No. 7711·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

HOOKER, C.

Where the plaintiffs in error have briefed their cause, and the defendants in error have filed no brief, nor offered any excuse for a failure so to do, and the extension of time allowed them in which to file brief has expired, and the brief of plaintiffs in error indicates that there are errors in the record, and the authorities therein cited seem to support their contention, the cause will be reversed and remanded for a 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

HOOKER, C.

Where the plaintiffs in error have briefed their cause, and the defendants in error have filed no brief, nor offered any excuse for a failure so to do, and the extension of time allowed them in which to file brief has expired, and the brief of plaintiffs in error indicates that there are errors in the record, and the authorities therein cited seem to support their contention, the cause will be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

By the Court: It is.so ordered.

King v. Palmer, 162 P. 821, 62 Okla. 299, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 964 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

162 P. 821 (King v. Palmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.