Security Ins. Co. v. Droke

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Security Ins. Co. v. Droke

1913 OK 635, 136 P. 430, 40 Okla. 116, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 29

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 11, 1913

Docket2964

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 1913 OK 635 (Security Ins. Co. v. Droke) 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

Security Ins. Co. v. Droke, 1913 OK 635, 136 P. 430, 40 Okla. 116, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 29 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

HAYES, C. J.

This proceeding in error is prosecuted to reverse an order of the trial court refusing to vacate and set aside a default judgment rendered by said court in favor of defendant in error and against plaintiff in error. Plaintiff in error, within the time prescribed by the rules of this court, has filed its brief, wherein it has set out the facts and has cited numerous authorities to sustain its contention that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to sustain the petition of plaintiff in error to vacate and set aside the judgment rendered against it upon default; the ground upon which said motion was made being that the judgment was obtained by the fraud of plaintiff and by unavoidable casualty which prevented defendant from defending the action. Defendant in error has chosen not to-file any brief in this court in answer to the brief of plaintiff in error, or in support of the judgment of the trial court. The brief of plaintiff in error appears to sustain fully its contention. It has been held repeatedly by this court that where plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed his brief as required by the rules of the court, and there is no brief filed or no reason given for its absence on the part of defendant in error, the court is not required to search the record to find some thedry upon which the judgment below may be sustained; but, where the brief filed by plaintiff in error appears reasonably to sustain his assignments of error, the court will reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Butler v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465, 107 Pac. 170; Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okla. 469, 106 Pac. 957; Flanagan v. Davis, 27 Okla. 422, 112 Pac. 990; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Long, 27 Okla. 456, 112 Pac. 991.

The judgment of the trial court is, accordingly, reversed, and the cause remanded, with direction to grant a new trial.

All the Justices concur, except WILRIAMS, J., not participating.

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

HAYES, C. J.

This proceeding in error is prosecuted to reverse an order of the trial court refusing to vacate and set aside a default judgment rendered by said court in favor of defendant in error and against plaintiff in error. Plaintiff in error, within the time prescribed by the rules of this court, has filed its brief, wherein it has set out the facts and has cited numerous authorities to sustain its contention that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to sustain the petition of plaintiff in error to vacate and set aside the judgment rendered against it upon default; the ground upon which said motion was made being that the judgment was obtained by the fraud of plaintiff and by unavoidable casualty which prevented defendant from defending the action. Defendant in error has chosen not to-file any brief in this court in answer to the brief of plaintiff in error, or in support of the judgment of the trial court. The brief of plaintiff in error appears to sustain fully its contention. It has been held repeatedly by this court that where plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed his brief as required by the rules of the court, and there is no brief filed or no reason given for its absence on the part of defendant in error, the court is not required to search the record to find some thedry upon which the judgment below may be sustained; but, where the brief filed by plaintiff in error appears reasonably to sustain his assignments of error, the court will reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Butler v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465, 107 Pac. 170; Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okla. 469, 106 Pac. 957; Flanagan v. Davis, 27 Okla. 422, 112 Pac. 990; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Long, 27 Okla. 456, 112 Pac. 991.

The judgment of the trial court is, accordingly, reversed, and the cause remanded, with direction to grant a new trial.

All the Justices concur, except WILRIAMS, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 635, 136 P. 430, 40 Okla. 116, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-ins-co-v-droke-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack