McNulty v. Oklahoma Union Traction Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McNulty v. Oklahoma Union Traction Co.

1915 OK 684, 151 P. 1073, 51 Okla. 396, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 997

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 28, 1915

Docket5162

StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK 684 (McNulty v. Oklahoma Union Traction Co.) 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

McNulty v. Oklahoma Union Traction Co., 1915 OK 684, 151 P. 1073, 51 Okla. 396, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 997 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

ROBBERTS, C.

This wfas a forcible entry and detention case, and comes here from the county court of Tulsa county. The petition in error was filed in this court on the 27th day of May, 1913.

The case was submitted on the 20th day of September, 1915, and under rule 7 of this court the plaintiff's brief should have been served and filed on or before the 10th day of August, 1915. It appearing that more than two years have elapsed since the petition in error was filed, and that the plaintiff in error has been in default' *397 for failure to file briefs for more than 40 days, and no reason or excuse being given for such failure, and no extension having been requested, the case should be affirmed under rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix).

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

ROBBERTS, C.

This wfas a forcible entry and detention case, and comes here from the county court of Tulsa county. The petition in error was filed in this court on the 27th day of May, 1913.

The case was submitted on the 20th day of September, 1915, and under rule 7 of this court the plaintiff's brief should have been served and filed on or before the 10th day of August, 1915. It appearing that more than two years have elapsed since the petition in error was filed, and that the plaintiff in error has been in default' *397 for failure to file briefs for more than 40 days, and no reason or excuse being given for such failure, and no extension having been requested, the case should be affirmed under rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix).

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 684, 151 P. 1073, 51 Okla. 396, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnulty-v-oklahoma-union-traction-co-okla-1915.