Leonard v. Adams

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Leonard v. Adams

1922 OK 179, 207 P. 90, 86 Okla. 181, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 141

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 16, 1922

Docket10661

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1922 OK 179 (Leonard v. Adams) 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

Leonard v. Adams, 1922 OK 179, 207 P. 90, 86 Okla. 181, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 141 (Okla. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

This action originated before a justice of the peace and was -brought by-the defendant in error, as plaintiff, to recover from the plaintiff in error, as defendant, the sum of $72 for the use and occupation of certain real estate located in Guthrie. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The cause was appealed to the -district court, where a trial was had to a jury. After the testimony was in, the court permitted the plaintiff to -amend his bill of particulars so as to ask for an increased amount of recovery. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $145, upon which judgment was rendered, and to review which this proceeding in error is prosecuted.

The only purported assignment of error in the brief of plaintiff in error is contained in the following statement:

“Our specifications of error are all contained in our original and supplemental motions for a new trial (pp. "70%-73 of record), and we will now -direct our argument to the error of the court in overruling these motions.”

Rule 26 of this court (47 Okla. x) requires :

“The brief of the plaintiff in error in all cases shall contain an abstract or abridgment of the transcript, setting forth the material parts o.f the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents upon which he relies, together with such other statements from the record as are necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented to this court for decision, so that no examination of the record itself need be made in this court. * * * Also, where a party complains of instructions given or refused, he shall set out in totidem verbis in his brief separately the portions to which he objects or may save exceptions. * * * The brief shall contain the specifications of error complained of, separately set forth and numbered ; the argument and authorities in support of each point relied on, in the same order, with strict observance of rule 7.”

Counsel for plaintiff in error have made no attempt to comply with the rule in any of the foregoing particulars, and when this rule is not complied with, the appeal will be -dismissed. Watkins Nat. Bank v. Polk, 47 Okla. 256, 147 Pac. 1011.

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

PITOHFORD, V.‘C. J., and JOHNSON, McNEILL, MILLER, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

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

NICHOLSON, J.

This action originated before a justice of the peace and was -brought by-the defendant in error, as plaintiff, to recover from the plaintiff in error, as defendant, the sum of $72 for the use and occupation of certain real estate located in Guthrie. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The cause was appealed to the -district court, where a trial was had to a jury. After the testimony was in, the court permitted the plaintiff to -amend his bill of particulars so as to ask for an increased amount of recovery. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $145, upon which judgment was rendered, and to review which this proceeding in error is prosecuted.

The only purported assignment of error in the brief of plaintiff in error is contained in the following statement:

“Our specifications of error are all contained in our original and supplemental motions for a new trial (pp. "70%-73 of record), and we will now -direct our argument to the error of the court in overruling these motions.”

Rule 26 of this court (47 Okla. x) requires :

“The brief of the plaintiff in error in all cases shall contain an abstract or abridgment of the transcript, setting forth the material parts o.f the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents upon which he relies, together with such other statements from the record as are necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented to this court for decision, so that no examination of the record itself need be made in this court. * * * Also, where a party complains of instructions given or refused, he shall set out in totidem verbis in his brief separately the portions to which he objects or may save exceptions. * * * The brief shall contain the specifications of error complained of, separately set forth and numbered ; the argument and authorities in support of each point relied on, in the same order, with strict observance of rule 7.”

Counsel for plaintiff in error have made no attempt to comply with the rule in any of the foregoing particulars, and when this rule is not complied with, the appeal will be -dismissed. Watkins Nat. Bank v. Polk, 47 Okla. 256, 147 Pac. 1011.

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

PITOHFORD, V.‘C. J., and JOHNSON, McNEILL, MILLER, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK 179, 207 P. 90, 86 Okla. 181, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-adams-okla-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack