Russell & Washington v. Robertson

1921 OK 303, 200 P. 150, 82 Okla. 283, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 270
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 26, 1921
Docket10227
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 1921 OK 303 (Russell & Washington v. Robertson) 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
Russell & Washington v. Robertson, 1921 OK 303, 200 P. 150, 82 Okla. 283, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 270 (Okla. 1921).

Opinion

KENNAMER, J.

Russell & Washington, plaintiffs in error, commenced this action in the district court of Love county against Jim Robertson, defendant in error, to.recover possession of nine head of, cattle, in replev-in. The defendant filed answer denying the allegation of the plaintiffs’ petition, and upon the issues joined a trial was had, and by consent of both parties to the action, after the introduction of the testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendant, the cause was withdrawn from- the jury and the issues of fact submitted to the court. The- court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. ¡Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which was by the court overruled. The plaintiffs have appealed to this court to review the judgment.

It appears from the record in this cause that the plaintiffs in error filed their brief in this court on November 23, 1920, and that service of the brief of the plaintiffs in error, was made upon the attorneys of record for the defendant in error on April 12, 1921, and that no -brief has been fiiéd by the defendant in error and no reason given why the defendant in error has not briefed the cause. The assignment of errors of the plaintiffs appears to be reasonably sustained, and it is not incumbent upon this court to search the record to find some theory upon which to sustain the judgment, and in such a situation this court will -reverse and remand the cause, with directions -to the trial court to grant a new trial. Security Ins. Co. v. Droke, 40 Okla. 116, 136 Pac. 340; Frost v. Haley, 63 Okla. 19, 161 Pac. 1174.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, and the trial court directed to grant the plaintiffs a new trial.

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

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

Related

Ward v. Simpson Merc. Co.
1925 OK 165 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Davidson v. Baughman
1924 OK 464 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v. McAnaw
1923 OK 903 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Newton v. State
1923 OK 878 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
J. W. Crowdus Drug Co. v. Van Doren
1923 OK 875 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Nelson v. Blasdel
1923 OK 553 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Gordon v. Messer
1923 OK 442 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Loughbridge v. Tynes
1923 OK 366 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Graham v. Kay
1923 OK 288 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Cherokee Mills v. Lewis
1923 OK 234 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Goff v. Lathan
1923 OK 237 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Hentz v. Wagner
1923 OK 3 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Brown v. Eddings
1922 OK 345 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1921 OK 303, 200 P. 150, 82 Okla. 283, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-washington-v-robertson-okla-1921.