Smith v. Hart

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Smith v. Hart

1932 OK 290, 10 P.2d 401, 156 Okla. 226, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 235

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 12, 1932

Docket21999

StatusPublished

This text of 1932 OK 290 (Smith v. Hart) 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. Hart, 1932 OK 290, 10 P.2d 401, 156 Okla. 226, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 235 (Okla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

M. E. Smith filed petition in the district court of Stephens county, alleging that she is the owner of the fee-simple title and in possession of certain real property in the town of Comanche, Stephens county, Okla., by virtue of a warranty deed from J. A. Hart and Lou Hart, executed June 18, 1923, which said deed was lost and never placed of record, and pray *227 ing judgment decreeing her to be the owner of the legal and equitable title to said property, and that title be quieted as against all of the defendants. The defendant Brown answered by general denial, and further claiming a lien on said property by reason of a judgment obtained in a suit against J. A. Hart on June 3, 1929. No answer was filed by the Harts. Upon hearing before the court plaintiff introduced the testimony of three witnesses besides her own testimony, in support of the allegations in her petition and although the journal entry recites, “The plaintiff introduced her evidence and rested and the defendant AV. E. Brown introduced evidence and rested, and the court tools the matter under advisement on the briefs of both parties, * * *” there is no record or transcript of any evidence by the said defendant shown in the ease-made other than the cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses. Trial was on April 21. 1930, and the court took the matter under advisement, and on May 5, 1930, rendered judgment in favor of AV. E. Brown, establishing his judgment lien; motion for new trial was filed and overruled by the court and the plaintiff duly perfected appeal to this court by filing petition in error with case-made on December 8, 1930.

Plaintiff in error, in compliance with the rules and order of this court, filed brief on February 13, 1931, but the defendants in error have wholly failed to file answer brief, pleading, or any other instrument in said cause on appeal, nor have defendants in error offered any excuse for their failure to do so. This court has consistently followed the rule announced in City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481, as follows :

“AVhere 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 support the assignments of error, reverse the cause, with directions in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.”

In this cause the petition in error prays that the judgment of the trial court be reversed, set aside, and held for naught, and that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error, and that she be restored to all rights that she has lost by the rendition of such judgment. AVe find upon examination of the authorities cited in the brief filed by plaintiff in error that they reasonably support the assignments of error, and we, therefore, reverse the judgment of the lower court and direct that it vacate its former judgment and enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error, as prayed for in her petition.

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

PER CURIAM.

M. E. Smith filed petition in the district court of Stephens county, alleging that she is the owner of the fee-simple title and in possession of certain real property in the town of Comanche, Stephens county, Okla., by virtue of a warranty deed from J. A. Hart and Lou Hart, executed June 18, 1923, which said deed was lost and never placed of record, and pray *227 ing judgment decreeing her to be the owner of the legal and equitable title to said property, and that title be quieted as against all of the defendants. The defendant Brown answered by general denial, and further claiming a lien on said property by reason of a judgment obtained in a suit against J. A. Hart on June 3, 1929. No answer was filed by the Harts. Upon hearing before the court plaintiff introduced the testimony of three witnesses besides her own testimony, in support of the allegations in her petition and although the journal entry recites, “The plaintiff introduced her evidence and rested and the defendant AV. E. Brown introduced evidence and rested, and the court tools the matter under advisement on the briefs of both parties, * * *” there is no record or transcript of any evidence by the said defendant shown in the ease-made other than the cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses. Trial was on April 21. 1930, and the court took the matter under advisement, and on May 5, 1930, rendered judgment in favor of AV. E. Brown, establishing his judgment lien; motion for new trial was filed and overruled by the court and the plaintiff duly perfected appeal to this court by filing petition in error with case-made on December 8, 1930.

Plaintiff in error, in compliance with the rules and order of this court, filed brief on February 13, 1931, but the defendants in error have wholly failed to file answer brief, pleading, or any other instrument in said cause on appeal, nor have defendants in error offered any excuse for their failure to do so. This court has consistently followed the rule announced in City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481, as follows :

“AVhere 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 support the assignments of error, reverse the cause, with directions in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.”

In this cause the petition in error prays that the judgment of the trial court be reversed, set aside, and held for naught, and that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error, and that she be restored to all rights that she has lost by the rendition of such judgment. AVe find upon examination of the authorities cited in the brief filed by plaintiff in error that they reasonably support the assignments of error, and we, therefore, reverse the judgment of the lower court and direct that it vacate its former judgment and enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error, as prayed for in her petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK 290, 10 P.2d 401, 156 Okla. 226, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hart-okla-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack