Morton v. Baker

1936 OK 726, 62 P.2d 476, 178 Okla. 227, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 545
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 17, 1936
DocketNo. 27102.
StatusPublished

This text of 1936 OK 726 (Morton v. Baker) 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
Morton v. Baker, 1936 OK 726, 62 P.2d 476, 178 Okla. 227, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 545 (Okla. 1936).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A motion to dismiss has been filed because the plaintiffs in error failed to give notice in open court either at the time the judgment was rendered or within 10 days thereafter of intention to appeal -to the Supreme Court and the record not affirmatively showing such notice was given. A response was called for under date of July 27, 1936, but the same has not been complied with. In the case of French v. *228 Bragg, 177 Okla. 43, 5 P. (2d) 953 we said:

“Where the defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss upon jurisdictional grounds, and this court has ordered the plaintiff in error to respond thereto and no response lias been filed, it is not the duty of this court to inquire further into the jurisdiction where the authorities cited by the movant reasonably sustain the lack of jurisdiction.”

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

MeNEILL, O. X, OSBORN, V. O. X, and BUSBY, WELCH, PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, XL, concur. RILEY and BAY-LESS, JX, absent.

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

Related

French v. Bragg
1936 OK 246 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1936 OK 726, 62 P.2d 476, 178 Okla. 227, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-baker-okla-1936.