Sango v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Sango v. Anderson

1927 OK 113, 261 P. 363, 128 Okla. 64, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 368

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 12, 1927

Docket17554

StatusPublished

This text of 1927 OK 113 (Sango v. Anderson) 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

Sango v. Anderson, 1927 OK 113, 261 P. 363, 128 Okla. 64, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 368 (Okla. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

*65 PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from tlie judgment of tlie district court of Seminole county, Okla., sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's petition and dismissing his cause of action. The plaintiff in error was the plaintiff below.

Plaintiff in error in due tifne served and filed his brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief or otherwise appear in said cause on its merits, nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so. In the case of City National Bank v. Coatney et al., No. 17104, in an opinion by this court filed February 22, 1927, 122 Okla. 144, 253 Pac. 481, this court laid down the rule that:

‘‘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.” See cases 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 petition in error prays that judgment sustaining demurrer and dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action be reversed, set aside, and held for naught, and the ease remanded to the district court, with directions. And we find upon examination of the authorities cited by plaintiff in error in his brief that they reasonably support the contention of the plaintiff, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the. lower court and direct that it vacate its former judgment, reinstate said cause of action, and overrule the demurrer.

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

*65 PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from tlie judgment of tlie district court of Seminole county, Okla., sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's petition and dismissing his cause of action. The plaintiff in error was the plaintiff below.

Plaintiff in error in due tifne served and filed his brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief or otherwise appear in said cause on its merits, nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so. In the case of City National Bank v. Coatney et al., No. 17104, in an opinion by this court filed February 22, 1927, 122 Okla. 144, 253 Pac. 481, this court laid down the rule that:

‘‘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.” See cases 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 petition in error prays that judgment sustaining demurrer and dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action be reversed, set aside, and held for naught, and the ease remanded to the district court, with directions. And we find upon examination of the authorities cited by plaintiff in error in his brief that they reasonably support the contention of the plaintiff, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the. lower court and direct that it vacate its former judgment, reinstate said cause of action, and overrule the demurrer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1927 OK 113, 261 P. 363, 128 Okla. 64, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sango-v-anderson-okla-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack