Roberts v. Converse

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Roberts v. Converse

1913 OK 222, 131 P. 539, 37 Okla. 169, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 168

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 4, 1913

Docket2766

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1913 OK 222 (Roberts v. Converse) 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

Roberts v. Converse, 1913 OK 222, 131 P. 539, 37 Okla. 169, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 168 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

BOS SEE, C.

This appeal is from an order of the county court dismissing an appeal for the reason that the appeal bond was defective.

The facts of this case are almost identical with the facts in the case of Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Roff, 34 Okla. 309, 125 Pac. 727. It was held that it was the duty of the court to permit an appeal bond to be corrected ox amended, as provided in section 6394, Comp. Laws 1909. The decision in that case is controlling in the present case, and has been followed in a number of other cases in this court. See C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 34 Okla. 199, 124 Pac. 989; Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Witter, 34 Okla. 313, 125 Pac. 729.

TJpon the authority of those cases, this ease must be reversed and remanded, with instructions to the county court of *170 Roger Mills county, to permit the plaintiff in error to file an amended appeal bond and to proceed with the trial of the case in regular course.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

BOS SEE, C.

This appeal is from an order of the county court dismissing an appeal for the reason that the appeal bond was defective.

The facts of this case are almost identical with the facts in the case of Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Roff, 34 Okla. 309, 125 Pac. 727. It was held that it was the duty of the court to permit an appeal bond to be corrected ox amended, as provided in section 6394, Comp. Laws 1909. The decision in that case is controlling in the present case, and has been followed in a number of other cases in this court. See C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 34 Okla. 199, 124 Pac. 989; Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Witter, 34 Okla. 313, 125 Pac. 729.

TJpon the authority of those cases, this ease must be reversed and remanded, with instructions to the county court of *170 Roger Mills county, to permit the plaintiff in error to file an amended appeal bond and to proceed with the trial of the case in regular course.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 222, 131 P. 539, 37 Okla. 169, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-converse-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack