Midland Elevator Co. v. Harrah

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Midland Elevator Co. v. Harrah

1914 OK 519, 143 P. 1168, 44 Okla. 154, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 661

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 27, 1914

Docket3771

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1914 OK 519 (Midland Elevator Co. v. Harrah) 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

Midland Elevator Co. v. Harrah, 1914 OK 519, 143 P. 1168, 44 Okla. 154, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 661 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

HARRISON, C.

This action was begun in March, 1911, by the Midland Elevator Company against Frank Harrah on a promissory note for the sum of $287.50. The defendant answered, by alleging that the note sued on , was given in consideration of a bucket shop contract for the future delivery of corn, and was therefore void. The cause was tried in October, 1911, and a verdict and judgment rendered in favor of defendant, and from such judgment and order overruling motion for new trial the plaintiff appeals upon three principal propositions, to wit: That the allegations in the answer were insufficient to constitute a defense against the note; errors of the *155 court in reception and rejection of testimony under the answer; and the overruling of the demurrer of plaintiff to defendant’s evidence.

These three propositions are presented together, under the assignment that the court erred in overruling plaintiff’s motion for new trial. Plaintiff in error, in compliance with an order of court as to the filing of briefs in this cause, filed its brief setting up the grounds upon which it sought reversal. The defendant in error failed to file a brief or to offer any excuse for such failure. Under the evidence quoted from the record in plaintiff in error’s brief and the authorities cited as applicable to the facts and questions of law presented in said brief, the propositions presented by plaintiff in error seem to be reasonably well supported, This court has repeatedly held that:

“Where plaintiff in error has completed his record and filed it in this, court, and has served and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of the court, and defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for such failure, the court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained; and where the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, the. court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiff in error.”

Phillips v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 99, 118 Pac. 371; Doyle v. School District No. 38, 30 Okla. 81. 118 Pac. 386; Bank of Grove v. Dennis, 30 Okla. 70, 118 Pac. 570; Hawkins v. White, 31 Okla. 118, 120 Pac. 561; Reynolds-Davis & Co. v. Hotchkiss, 31 Okla. 606, 122 Pac. 165; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Booher, 34 Okla. 64, 124 Pac. 760.

Under this line of authorities, and inasmuch as plaintiff in error’s contentions seem to be reasonably sustained, the judgment should 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

Opinion by

HARRISON, C.

This action was begun in March, 1911, by the Midland Elevator Company against Frank Harrah on a promissory note for the sum of $287.50. The defendant answered, by alleging that the note sued on , was given in consideration of a bucket shop contract for the future delivery of corn, and was therefore void. The cause was tried in October, 1911, and a verdict and judgment rendered in favor of defendant, and from such judgment and order overruling motion for new trial the plaintiff appeals upon three principal propositions, to wit: That the allegations in the answer were insufficient to constitute a defense against the note; errors of the *155 court in reception and rejection of testimony under the answer; and the overruling of the demurrer of plaintiff to defendant’s evidence.

These three propositions are presented together, under the assignment that the court erred in overruling plaintiff’s motion for new trial. Plaintiff in error, in compliance with an order of court as to the filing of briefs in this cause, filed its brief setting up the grounds upon which it sought reversal. The defendant in error failed to file a brief or to offer any excuse for such failure. Under the evidence quoted from the record in plaintiff in error’s brief and the authorities cited as applicable to the facts and questions of law presented in said brief, the propositions presented by plaintiff in error seem to be reasonably well supported, This court has repeatedly held that:

“Where plaintiff in error has completed his record and filed it in this, court, and has served and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of the court, and defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for such failure, the court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained; and where the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, the. court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiff in error.”

Phillips v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 99, 118 Pac. 371; Doyle v. School District No. 38, 30 Okla. 81. 118 Pac. 386; Bank of Grove v. Dennis, 30 Okla. 70, 118 Pac. 570; Hawkins v. White, 31 Okla. 118, 120 Pac. 561; Reynolds-Davis & Co. v. Hotchkiss, 31 Okla. 606, 122 Pac. 165; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Booher, 34 Okla. 64, 124 Pac. 760.

Under this line of authorities, and inasmuch as plaintiff in error’s contentions seem to be reasonably sustained, the judgment should be reversed, and the cause remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 519, 143 P. 1168, 44 Okla. 154, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midland-elevator-co-v-harrah-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack