Smith v. Graham Brown Shoe Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Smith v. Graham Brown Shoe Co.

1937 OK 235, 67 P.2d 448, 179 Okla. 559, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 334

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 6, 1937

DocketNo. 27547.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1937 OK 235 (Smith v. Graham Brown Shoe 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

Smith v. Graham Brown Shoe Co., 1937 OK 235, 67 P.2d 448, 179 Okla. 559, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 334 (Okla. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action on account. Judgment was for the plaintiff. Plaintiff introduced as his case certain depositions to prove his account.

The sole issue argued in the defendant’s brief is that the exhibits of depositions constituting the account were never properly identified. No contest was raised as to the payment or otherwise in the trial court. The account was not specifically denied, and it is not urged here that the exhibits are incorrect. No defense is presented. We have held that where a motion to dismiss has been filed which challenges the appeal on the ground that it is without merit and for delay only, the same will be dismissed if an examination of plaintiff in error’s brief shows that there is no contest. The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.

OSBORN, C. J., and RILEY, WELCH, CORN, and GIBSON, JX, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action on account. Judgment was for the plaintiff. Plaintiff introduced as his case certain depositions to prove his account.

The sole issue argued in the defendant’s brief is that the exhibits of depositions constituting the account were never properly identified. No contest was raised as to the payment or otherwise in the trial court. The account was not specifically denied, and it is not urged here that the exhibits are incorrect. No defense is presented. We have held that where a motion to dismiss has been filed which challenges the appeal on the ground that it is without merit and for delay only, the same will be dismissed if an examination of plaintiff in error’s brief shows that there is no contest. The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.

OSBORN, C. J., and RILEY, WELCH, CORN, and GIBSON, JX, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1937 OK 235, 67 P.2d 448, 179 Okla. 559, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-graham-brown-shoe-co-okla-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack