Roher v. Bolster

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Roher v. Bolster

1921 OK 304, 200 P. 146, 82 Okla. 275, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 267

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 26, 1921

Docket10265

StatusPublished

This text of 1921 OK 304 (Roher v. Bolster) 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

Roher v. Bolster, 1921 OK 304, 200 P. 146, 82 Okla. 275, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 267 (Okla. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLER, J.

This action was commenced in the district court of Ellis county by Díñ-ese Bolster and Henry Bolster, as husband and wife, against Alex Roher and A. M. Ben-brooke, to recover damages for false representations made by the defendants in procuring the delivery. of a certain deed which had been placed in escrow under a contract of sale. of certain lands by the plaintiffs to the defendant Alex Roher. It was alleged in the petition that there was a balance due from Roher to the plaintiffs on the sale of said land. The case was tried to a jury, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the sum of $500. The jury’s verdict was in favor of defendant A. M. Ben-brooke. Defendant Alex Roher appealed to this court and appears here as plaintiff in error.

This case was regularly assigned for submission on June 21, 1921, on the printed docket of. this court. The plaintiff in error has not filed any brief. No showing is made or reason given why briefs have not been filed in compliance with rule No. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vi). In re Seizure of One Chevrolet, Baby Grand Auto, v. State of Oklahoma, 82 Okla. 202, 200 Pac. 144.

This appeal is hereby dismissed for failure of plaintiff in error to file brief.

PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

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

MILLER, J.

This action was commenced in the district court of Ellis county by Díñ-ese Bolster and Henry Bolster, as husband and wife, against Alex Roher and A. M. Ben-brooke, to recover damages for false representations made by the defendants in procuring the delivery. of a certain deed which had been placed in escrow under a contract of sale. of certain lands by the plaintiffs to the defendant Alex Roher. It was alleged in the petition that there was a balance due from Roher to the plaintiffs on the sale of said land. The case was tried to a jury, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the sum of $500. The jury’s verdict was in favor of defendant A. M. Ben-brooke. Defendant Alex Roher appealed to this court and appears here as plaintiff in error.

This case was regularly assigned for submission on June 21, 1921, on the printed docket of. this court. The plaintiff in error has not filed any brief. No showing is made or reason given why briefs have not been filed in compliance with rule No. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vi). In re Seizure of One Chevrolet, Baby Grand Auto, v. State of Oklahoma, 82 Okla. 202, 200 Pac. 144.

This appeal is hereby dismissed for failure of plaintiff in error to file brief.

PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1921 OK 304, 200 P. 146, 82 Okla. 275, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roher-v-bolster-okla-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack