Planters' State Bank of Tushka v. Walton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Planters' State Bank of Tushka v. Walton

1927 OK 73, 255 P. 577, 124 Okla. 247, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 220

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 22, 1927

Docket16978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1927 OK 73 (Planters' State Bank of Tushka v. Walton) 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

Planters' State Bank of Tushka v. Walton, 1927 OK 73, 255 P. 577, 124 Okla. 247, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 220 (Okla. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court of Atoka county. Plaintiff in error was plaintiff below. The plaintiff in error in due tim'e served and filed its brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief or to otherwise appear in this cause in this court, nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so.

In the ease of the City National Bank v. Coateny et al, 122 Okla. 144, 253 Pac. 481, this court held:

“Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its 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, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the Brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause, with directions, 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 National Bank v. Ulrich et al., 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

In this case the plaintiff in error prays that the judgment rendered in the trial court be reversed, set aside, and held for naught and that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error and against the defendant in error for the amount sued for in the trial court, and we find upon examination that the authorities cited by plaintiff in error in its brief reasonably support the contentions of the plaintiff in error. It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the trial court be reversed, set aside, and held for naught and that said cause be remanded, with directions, that the trial court render judgment in fgyor of the plaintiff in error and against the defendant in error for the amount sued for in the trial "court.

CLARK, J., disqualified and not participating.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court of Atoka county. Plaintiff in error was plaintiff below. The plaintiff in error in due tim'e served and filed its brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief or to otherwise appear in this cause in this court, nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so.

In the ease of the City National Bank v. Coateny et al, 122 Okla. 144, 253 Pac. 481, this court held:

“Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its 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, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the Brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause, with directions, 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 National Bank v. Ulrich et al., 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

In this case the plaintiff in error prays that the judgment rendered in the trial court be reversed, set aside, and held for naught and that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error and against the defendant in error for the amount sued for in the trial court, and we find upon examination that the authorities cited by plaintiff in error in its brief reasonably support the contentions of the plaintiff in error. It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the trial court be reversed, set aside, and held for naught and that said cause be remanded, with directions, that the trial court render judgment in fgyor of the plaintiff in error and against the defendant in error for the amount sued for in the trial "court.

CLARK, J., disqualified and not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1927 OK 73, 255 P. 577, 124 Okla. 247, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/planters-state-bank-of-tushka-v-walton-okla-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack