Smith v. Wharton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Smith v. Wharton

1915 OK 624, 151 P. 852, 51 Okla. 185, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 946

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 14, 1915

Docket5794

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1915 OK 624 (Smith v. Wharton) 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. Wharton, 1915 OK 624, 151 P. 852, 51 Okla. 185, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 946 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

DEVEREUX, C.

This cause was docketed in this court on October 16, Í913, and was regularly submitted on September 13, 1915, but no brief has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in error, and no extension of time asked for, and no excuse given for such failure. Rule 7 of this court, providing for the filing and • service of briefs, contains the provision that, in case of failure to comply with the requirements of the . rule, this court may continue the cause, or reverse or affirm the judgment, in its discretion. In order that we might intelligently exercise this discretion thus given us, we have carefully considered the case-made, and proceedings of the *186 trial court sought to be reviewed, and can discover no prejudicial error therein.

We therefore recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

DEVEREUX, C.

This cause was docketed in this court on October 16, Í913, and was regularly submitted on September 13, 1915, but no brief has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in error, and no extension of time asked for, and no excuse given for such failure. Rule 7 of this court, providing for the filing and • service of briefs, contains the provision that, in case of failure to comply with the requirements of the . rule, this court may continue the cause, or reverse or affirm the judgment, in its discretion. In order that we might intelligently exercise this discretion thus given us, we have carefully considered the case-made, and proceedings of the *186 trial court sought to be reviewed, and can discover no prejudicial error therein.

We therefore recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 624, 151 P. 852, 51 Okla. 185, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-wharton-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack