Pennington v. Leforce

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Pennington v. Leforce

1922 OK 287, 209 P. 650, 87 Okla. 93, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 236

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 26, 1922

Docket10830

StatusPublished

This text of 1922 OK 287 (Pennington v. Leforce) 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

Pennington v. Leforce, 1922 OK 287, 209 P. 650, 87 Okla. 93, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 236 (Okla. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

This cause originated before a justice of the peace in Craig county, by the plaintiff in error filing a complaint charging the defendant in error Dick Deforce with committing a felonious assault upon the plaintiff in error. The county attorney of said county, after an examination of Hie facts, recommended that a warrant issue. Upon the preliminary examination the justice of the peace discharged the defendant and held that the prosecution was malicious and without probable cause, and taxed the costs of said action, amounting to the sum of $63.20, to the plaintiff in error. The cause was appealed to the district court where,' on the motion of the state, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the court was Without jurisdiction. From this judgment of dismissal the plaintiff in error has appealed to this court.

Plaintiff in error has served and filed his brief, but the defendants in error have filed no brief, although the time for so doing has expired. It has been repeatedly held that when the plaintiff in error has served and filed his brief 'in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in. error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his' failure to do so, the .court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the court below may be sustained, but may, when the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34 ; Lawton Nat. Bank v. Ulrich et al., 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

As the brief of the plaintiff in error and the authorities cited therein appear reasonably ito sustain the assignments of error, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to set aside the judgment and dismiss the proceedings against, the plaintiff in error.

KANE, JOHNSON, McNEILL, MIDLER, and KENNAMER. JJ„ 'concur.

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

NICHOLSON, J.

This cause originated before a justice of the peace in Craig county, by the plaintiff in error filing a complaint charging the defendant in error Dick Deforce with committing a felonious assault upon the plaintiff in error. The county attorney of said county, after an examination of Hie facts, recommended that a warrant issue. Upon the preliminary examination the justice of the peace discharged the defendant and held that the prosecution was malicious and without probable cause, and taxed the costs of said action, amounting to the sum of $63.20, to the plaintiff in error. The cause was appealed to the district court where,' on the motion of the state, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the court was Without jurisdiction. From this judgment of dismissal the plaintiff in error has appealed to this court.

Plaintiff in error has served and filed his brief, but the defendants in error have filed no brief, although the time for so doing has expired. It has been repeatedly held that when the plaintiff in error has served and filed his brief 'in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in. error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his' failure to do so, the .court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the court below may be sustained, but may, when the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34 ; Lawton Nat. Bank v. Ulrich et al., 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

As the brief of the plaintiff in error and the authorities cited therein appear reasonably ito sustain the assignments of error, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to set aside the judgment and dismiss the proceedings against, the plaintiff in error.

KANE, JOHNSON, McNEILL, MIDLER, and KENNAMER. JJ„ 'concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK 287, 209 P. 650, 87 Okla. 93, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennington-v-leforce-okla-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack