Lutee v. Stumpf

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Lutee v. Stumpf

1915 OK 353, 149 P. 210, 46 Okla. 620, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 1224

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 25, 1915

Docket4293

StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK 353 (Lutee v. Stumpf) 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

Lutee v. Stumpf, 1915 OK 353, 149 P. 210, 46 Okla. 620, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 1224 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

BRETT, C.

This action was commenced in tbe justice court in Oklahoma City by tbe plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, against tbe defendant in error, who was defendant below.

The petition alleges that the plaintiff was engaged in the real estate and brokerage business, and, as such, brought about an exchange of real estate for the defendant, for which services the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a commission of $114; that defendant refuses to pay said sum, and plaintiff prays for judgment for that amount. The cause was tried in the justice court and appealed from that court to the county court of Oklahoma county, and tried to a jury, which found for the defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff has perfected his appeal to this court. The case was filed in this court August 1.9, 1913.

Plaintiff filed his brief April 19, 1915, and on that date defendant was allowed 15 days in which to file a reply brief. And, although the time has long since elapsed, no brief has been filed by the defendant, no request made for additional time, and no reason assigned for his failure to file brief.

Plaintiff' insists upon three assignments of error*, and we have examined the record and brief of plaintiff, and find his contention reasonably sustained by his brief.

We recommend the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

BRETT, C.

This action was commenced in tbe justice court in Oklahoma City by tbe plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, against tbe defendant in error, who was defendant below.

The petition alleges that the plaintiff was engaged in the real estate and brokerage business, and, as such, brought about an exchange of real estate for the defendant, for which services the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a commission of $114; that defendant refuses to pay said sum, and plaintiff prays for judgment for that amount. The cause was tried in the justice court and appealed from that court to the county court of Oklahoma county, and tried to a jury, which found for the defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff has perfected his appeal to this court. The case was filed in this court August 1.9, 1913.

Plaintiff filed his brief April 19, 1915, and on that date defendant was allowed 15 days in which to file a reply brief. And, although the time has long since elapsed, no brief has been filed by the defendant, no request made for additional time, and no reason assigned for his failure to file brief.

Plaintiff' insists upon three assignments of error*, and we have examined the record and brief of plaintiff, and find his contention reasonably sustained by his brief.

We recommend the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 353, 149 P. 210, 46 Okla. 620, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 1224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lutee-v-stumpf-okla-1915.