Nehring v. Ferguson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Nehring v. Ferguson

1930 OK 45, 284 P. 15, 141 Okla. 121, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 28

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 21, 1930

Docket20802

StatusPublished

This text of 1930 OK 45 (Nehring v. Ferguson) 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

Nehring v. Ferguson, 1930 OK 45, 284 P. 15, 141 Okla. 121, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 28 (Okla. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Garfield county. The plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, in due time served and filed her brief in full compliance with the rules of tfiis court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief, pleading, or other instrument in said cause on appeal, nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so.

Under this condition of the record this cause comes within the rule announced in the case of City National Bank v. Coatney et al., 122 Okla. 233, 253 Pac. 481, and the *122 rule therein announced is applied in this cause.

In this case the petition in error prays that the judgment and order of the trial court be set aside and held for naught and that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error restoring plaintiff in error to all rights of which she has been deprived by reason of the judgment of said court, and we find upon examination of authorities cited by plaintiff in error they reaonably support the contention of plaintiff, and therefore reverse the judgment of the lower court and direct it to vacate its order and judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action and to enter an order reinstating plaintiff’s cause of action and deny the motion of defendant to strike the amended petition of the plaintiff.

Note. — See “Appeal and Error,” 3 C. X §1607, p. 1447, n. 46.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Garfield county. The plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, in due time served and filed her brief in full compliance with the rules of tfiis court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief, pleading, or other instrument in said cause on appeal, nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so.

Under this condition of the record this cause comes within the rule announced in the case of City National Bank v. Coatney et al., 122 Okla. 233, 253 Pac. 481, and the *122 rule therein announced is applied in this cause.

In this case the petition in error prays that the judgment and order of the trial court be set aside and held for naught and that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error restoring plaintiff in error to all rights of which she has been deprived by reason of the judgment of said court, and we find upon examination of authorities cited by plaintiff in error they reaonably support the contention of plaintiff, and therefore reverse the judgment of the lower court and direct it to vacate its order and judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action and to enter an order reinstating plaintiff’s cause of action and deny the motion of defendant to strike the amended petition of the plaintiff.

Note. — See “Appeal and Error,” 3 C. X §1607, p. 1447, n. 46.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1930 OK 45, 284 P. 15, 141 Okla. 121, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nehring-v-ferguson-okla-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack