Minot v. Reynolds

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Minot v. Reynolds

1925 OK 89, 233 P. 177, 106 Okla. 109, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 37

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 3, 1925

Docket13064

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK 89 (Minot v. Reynolds) 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

Minot v. Reynolds, 1925 OK 89, 233 P. 177, 106 Okla. 109, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 37 (Okla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

THREADGILL, C.

This is an action wherein Mfcs. Hattie Reynolds, one of the defendants in error, as plaintiff, brought suit against Ben J. Minoit, plaintiff in error, and C. H. Payton, one of the defendants in error, as defendants, for damages in the wrongful taking of an automobile from her, and for slander. Judgment was for plaintiff in the trial court, and Ben J. Minot appealed by petition in error and case-made attached. The record was filed in this court February 25, 1922. Plaintiff in error has failed to file brief in the case as required by rule 7 of the court and has failed to give any excuse for such failure. Wfo are, therefore, of the opinion the appeal should be dismissed.

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

THREADGILL, C.

This is an action wherein Mfcs. Hattie Reynolds, one of the defendants in error, as plaintiff, brought suit against Ben J. Minoit, plaintiff in error, and C. H. Payton, one of the defendants in error, as defendants, for damages in the wrongful taking of an automobile from her, and for slander. Judgment was for plaintiff in the trial court, and Ben J. Minot appealed by petition in error and case-made attached. The record was filed in this court February 25, 1922. Plaintiff in error has failed to file brief in the case as required by rule 7 of the court and has failed to give any excuse for such failure. Wfo are, therefore, of the opinion the appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK 89, 233 P. 177, 106 Okla. 109, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minot-v-reynolds-okla-1925.