Sand Springs Park v. Shrader

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Sand Springs Park v. Shrader

1923 OK 104, 212 P. 754, 88 Okla. 228, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 603

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 13, 1923

Docket10818

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1923 OK 104 (Sand Springs Park v. Shrader) 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

Sand Springs Park v. Shrader, 1923 OK 104, 212 P. 754, 88 Okla. 228, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 603 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

This was an action for the appointment of a receiver for the properties of the plaintiff in error, and also a proceeding in aid of execution to discover assets belonging to the plaintiff in error, in an attempt to realize on a judgment in favor of the defendant in error. A receiver was appointed, wh-ereupon the plaintiff in error moved the court to set aside and vacate the order appointing the receiver. This motion was overruled, and from the order refusing to vacate and set aside the order appointing a receiver, the plaintiff in error has appealed, and has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court. The defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for her failure to do so.

It has been uniformly hold by this court, that where the defendant in error has failed to file a -brief in accordance with the rules of this court, the 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 judgment and remand the cause in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34, and cases there cited; Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich, 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

The brief of the plaintiff in error and the authorities cited therein appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error; therefore the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

JOHNSON, V. C. J., and KANE, KEN-NAMER, BRANSON, and COCHRAN, J.T., concur. 1

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

NICHOLSON, J.

This was an action for the appointment of a receiver for the properties of the plaintiff in error, and also a proceeding in aid of execution to discover assets belonging to the plaintiff in error, in an attempt to realize on a judgment in favor of the defendant in error. A receiver was appointed, wh-ereupon the plaintiff in error moved the court to set aside and vacate the order appointing the receiver. This motion was overruled, and from the order refusing to vacate and set aside the order appointing a receiver, the plaintiff in error has appealed, and has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court. The defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for her failure to do so.

It has been uniformly hold by this court, that where the defendant in error has failed to file a -brief in accordance with the rules of this court, the 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 judgment and remand the cause in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34, and cases there cited; Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich, 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

The brief of the plaintiff in error and the authorities cited therein appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error; therefore the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

JOHNSON, V. C. J., and KANE, KEN-NAMER, BRANSON, and COCHRAN, J.T., concur. 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 104, 212 P. 754, 88 Okla. 228, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sand-springs-park-v-shrader-okla-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack