Leavitt v. Commercial Nat. Bank

1910 OK 140, 109 P. 71, 26 Okla. 164, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 28
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 10, 1910
Docket964
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1910 OK 140 (Leavitt v. Commercial Nat. Bank) 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
Leavitt v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 1910 OK 140, 109 P. 71, 26 Okla. 164, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 28 (Okla. 1910).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

On July 16, 1909, petition in error with ease-made attached was filed with the clerk of this court, and summons issued thereon. On the 25th day of February, 1910, the defendant in error filed a motion in this court, which shows service upon the attorney for the plaintiff in error, asking that the appeal be dismissed on account of the plaintiff in error’s failure to comply with rule 7 of this court (20 Okla. viii, 98 Pac. vi), which requires him to prepare 'and serve his brief upon defendant in error within 40 days, after filing his petition in this court, which he has failed to do.

*165 Buie 5 of this court provides:

“When a motion is filed with the clerk, it must show service upon the opposite party as to the time it will be filed, who shall have 10 days thereafter in which to answer the same.”

Exactly 3 months have elapsed since this motion was filed in this court, and plaintiff in error has failed to make any response thereto, although he has been in default in the filing of his brief for over 6 months. If plaintiff in error is unable to undergo the expense of filing a printed brief, under rule 5, a motion containing a statement of the facts, by being served on the opposite side, could be retailed to the clerk of this court, and would be -considered by it after the expiration of the 10 days for reply thereto, without any necessity of any appearance of counsel here, and if it appeared that the alleged aggrieved party was unable to have printed a brief, and there was probable ground that he had a meritorious cause, this court would permit him to file typewritten briefs. Nothing of this kind has been done.

It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Hellums v. Jessup
1912 OK 363 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Bruce v. Ketcham
1911 OK 361 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Adams v. Board of Com'rs of Pawnee County
1911 OK 70 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Daggs v. Elliott
1911 OK 86 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Maddin v. McCormick
1911 OK 40 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Gillespie v. Frisbie
1910 OK 331 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Bash v. Howald
1910 OK 313 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Fred Miller Brewing Company v. Kelly
1910 OK 326 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Monnington v. Cotteral
1910 OK 241 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Cooper v. Chapman
1910 OK 204 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Bartlesville Vitrified Brick Co. v. Barker
1910 OK 117 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1910 OK 140, 109 P. 71, 26 Okla. 164, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leavitt-v-commercial-nat-bank-okla-1910.