Lebreton v. Swartzel

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Lebreton v. Swartzel

1904 OK 103, 78 P. 323, 14 Okla. 521, 1904 Okla. LEXIS 107

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 3, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1904 OK 103 (Lebreton v. Swartzel) 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

Lebreton v. Swartzel, 1904 OK 103, 78 P. 323, 14 Okla. 521, 1904 Okla. LEXIS 107 (Okla. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Burford, C. J.:

This cause appears to be an appeal from a judgment of the probate court of Canadian county. There are no briefs on file. The petition in error is accompanied by a transcript of the record. There is no bill' of exceptions or case made. The transcript contains several motions, objections and other papers on file in the cause,, which are no part of the record, and could only be made so-by bill of exceptions or case made. The record contains no exception to the final judgment of the probate court, and there was no motion for a new trial or review in the trial court. .

The rules of this court require a plaintiff in error to-serve a brief on counsel for defendant in error within forty days after the petition in error is filed, and at the same-time to file fifteen copies of his brief with the clerk of the-supreme court. The purpose of a brief is to point out and specifically designate the alleged errors relied upon for a reversal of the judgment, and it is the duty of persons bring *523 ing eases into this court to affirmatively show error in the-record. Judgments of courts of record are presumptively regular and valid, and where no error is pointed out or made to affirmatively appear, an appellate court will ordinarily rely upon such presumption of regularity and dismiss the appeal.

It' is not the duty of an appellate court to search the record for the purpose of discovering error. While it may waive the filing of a brief, and may review any errors contained in a record whether pointed out or not, it is not required to do so, and generally will not assume such burdens.

The failure of a plaintiff in error to file a brief in support of his petition in error, is a waiver of his right to be-heard in the appellate court.

The appeal is dismissed, and the cause remanded to the’ trial court.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of the court by

Burford, C. J.:

This cause appears to be an appeal from a judgment of the probate court of Canadian county. There are no briefs on file. The petition in error is accompanied by a transcript of the record. There is no bill' of exceptions or case made. The transcript contains several motions, objections and other papers on file in the cause,, which are no part of the record, and could only be made so-by bill of exceptions or case made. The record contains no exception to the final judgment of the probate court, and there was no motion for a new trial or review in the trial court. .

The rules of this court require a plaintiff in error to-serve a brief on counsel for defendant in error within forty days after the petition in error is filed, and at the same-time to file fifteen copies of his brief with the clerk of the-supreme court. The purpose of a brief is to point out and specifically designate the alleged errors relied upon for a reversal of the judgment, and it is the duty of persons bring *523 ing eases into this court to affirmatively show error in the-record. Judgments of courts of record are presumptively regular and valid, and where no error is pointed out or made to affirmatively appear, an appellate court will ordinarily rely upon such presumption of regularity and dismiss the appeal.

It' is not the duty of an appellate court to search the record for the purpose of discovering error. While it may waive the filing of a brief, and may review any errors contained in a record whether pointed out or not, it is not required to do so, and generally will not assume such burdens.

The failure of a plaintiff in error to file a brief in support of his petition in error, is a waiver of his right to be-heard in the appellate court.

The appeal is dismissed, and the cause remanded to the’ trial court.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1904 OK 103, 78 P. 323, 14 Okla. 521, 1904 Okla. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lebreton-v-swartzel-okla-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack