Schrimsher v. Hardwike Etter Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Schrimsher v. Hardwike Etter Co.

1922 OK 358, 210 P. 1024, 88 Okla. 34, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 320

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 12, 1922

Docket12388

StatusPublished

This text of 1922 OK 358 (Schrimsher v. Hardwike Etter Co.) 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

Schrimsher v. Hardwike Etter Co., 1922 OK 358, 210 P. 1024, 88 Okla. 34, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 320 (Okla. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

This case is presented on the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the appeal, the ground of such motion being that the appeal is frivolous, and for delay only.

The action was upon a written instrument and an account duly verified. The answer was an unverified general denial. The-trial court sustained the motion of the plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings. The execution of the written instrument and the correctness of the account not being put in issue by the answer, the action of the trial court in sustaining the motion for judgment on the pleadings was proper.

It is apparent (hat the appeal is frivolous. .Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

HARRISON, C. J., and McNEILL, MILLER, KENNAMER, and COCHRAN, JJ., concur.

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

NICHOLSON, J.

This case is presented on the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the appeal, the ground of such motion being that the appeal is frivolous, and for delay only.

The action was upon a written instrument and an account duly verified. The answer was an unverified general denial. The-trial court sustained the motion of the plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings. The execution of the written instrument and the correctness of the account not being put in issue by the answer, the action of the trial court in sustaining the motion for judgment on the pleadings was proper.

It is apparent (hat the appeal is frivolous. .Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

HARRISON, C. J., and McNEILL, MILLER, KENNAMER, and COCHRAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK 358, 210 P. 1024, 88 Okla. 34, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schrimsher-v-hardwike-etter-co-okla-1922.