Moore v. Adams

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Moore v. Adams

1913 OK 614, 136 P. 410, 40 Okla. 100, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 24

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 4, 1913

Docket3477

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1913 OK 614 (Moore 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

Moore v. Adams, 1913 OK 614, 136 P. 410, 40 Okla. 100, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 24 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause comes on to be heard on motion of defendant in error to affirm the judgment of the trial court. There judgment was rendered against plaintiff in error for a certain sum, whereupon he superseded the same and commenced proceeding in error in this court. As counsel for plaintiff in error has not complied with that part of our rule 25 (38 Okla. x, 95 Pac. viii) which requires:

“The brief of the plaintiff in error in all cases except felonies shall contain an abstract or abridgment of the transcript, setting forth the material parts of 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”

—the judgment of the court below is affirmed. Berry v. Woodward et al., 38 Okla. 468, 133 Pac. 1127; McKain v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 35 Okla. 164, 128 Pac. 895; Merchants’ & Planters’ Ins. Co. v. Crane et al., 31 Okla. 713, 123 Pac. 1126.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause comes on to be heard on motion of defendant in error to affirm the judgment of the trial court. There judgment was rendered against plaintiff in error for a certain sum, whereupon he superseded the same and commenced proceeding in error in this court. As counsel for plaintiff in error has not complied with that part of our rule 25 (38 Okla. x, 95 Pac. viii) which requires:

“The brief of the plaintiff in error in all cases except felonies shall contain an abstract or abridgment of the transcript, setting forth the material parts of 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”

—the judgment of the court below is affirmed. Berry v. Woodward et al., 38 Okla. 468, 133 Pac. 1127; McKain v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 35 Okla. 164, 128 Pac. 895; Merchants’ & Planters’ Ins. Co. v. Crane et al., 31 Okla. 713, 123 Pac. 1126.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 614, 136 P. 410, 40 Okla. 100, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-adams-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack