Simmon v. Young

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Simmon v. Young

1919 OK 388, 186 P. 941, 77 Okla. 203, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 277

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 23, 1919

Docket10027

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1919 OK 388 (Simmon v. Young) 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

Simmon v. Young, 1919 OK 388, 186 P. 941, 77 Okla. 203, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 277 (Okla. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, C. J.

Tandy C. Young brought this action against J. M. Simmon, alleging, in substance, that Simmon employed him to sell an undivided interest in an oil lease for $5,000 net to Simmon, and in pursuance of this employment he procured a purchaser within the time mentioned, who was ready, willing, and able to purchase the interest, paying therefor the sum of $8,000, $3,000 of which amount was to be paid to Young as his commission, but Simmon failed and refused to accept the offer, and thereby became indebted to Young in the sum of $3,000.. Simmon answered by way of general denial, alleging also that he had canceled the employment prior to the performance by Young. The case ¿was tried to the court, without a jury; judgment rendered for Young in the sum of $3,000; from this judgment Simmon appeals.

Defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason the same is frivolous and brought for the purpose of delay only. To this motion no response has been made.

From an examination of the entire record, it appears no other judgment could have been rendered, and that the appeal is clearly frivolous, and it will, therefore, be dismissed. Greenless v. Beckett, 49 Okla. 135, 152 Pac. 349; Skirvin v. Goldstein, 40 Okla. 315, 137 Pac. 1177.

KANE, PITCHFORD, HIGGINS, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

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

OWEN, C. J.

Tandy C. Young brought this action against J. M. Simmon, alleging, in substance, that Simmon employed him to sell an undivided interest in an oil lease for $5,000 net to Simmon, and in pursuance of this employment he procured a purchaser within the time mentioned, who was ready, willing, and able to purchase the interest, paying therefor the sum of $8,000, $3,000 of which amount was to be paid to Young as his commission, but Simmon failed and refused to accept the offer, and thereby became indebted to Young in the sum of $3,000.. Simmon answered by way of general denial, alleging also that he had canceled the employment prior to the performance by Young. The case ¿was tried to the court, without a jury; judgment rendered for Young in the sum of $3,000; from this judgment Simmon appeals.

Defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason the same is frivolous and brought for the purpose of delay only. To this motion no response has been made.

From an examination of the entire record, it appears no other judgment could have been rendered, and that the appeal is clearly frivolous, and it will, therefore, be dismissed. Greenless v. Beckett, 49 Okla. 135, 152 Pac. 349; Skirvin v. Goldstein, 40 Okla. 315, 137 Pac. 1177.

KANE, PITCHFORD, HIGGINS, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1919 OK 388, 186 P. 941, 77 Okla. 203, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmon-v-young-okla-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack