Smith v. Whitlow

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Smith v. Whitlow

1916 OK 749, 159 P. 258, 59 Okla. 257, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1216

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 27, 1916

Docket6092

StatusPublished

This text of 1916 OK 749 (Smith v. Whitlow) 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. Whitlow, 1916 OK 749, 159 P. 258, 59 Okla. 257, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1216 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

HANTS, C.

The petition in error, with the case-made attached, was duly filed in this court on the 27th day of February, A. D. 1914. The plaintiff in error filed his brief on August 7. 1914, but up to this date the defendant in error, has not filed any brief or motions of any kind or offered any excuse for sucb failure. It is a well-established rule of-this court that when the-brief of flue plaintiff in error reasonably appears to support tbe assignments of error, the court will not search the record to ascertain some possible theory on which the case may be affirmed, but if the assignments of error appear to be reasonably supported by the record, the case will be reversed. Butler v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465, 107 Pac. 170; Dievert et al., School Board of District No. 79, v. Rainey et al., 41 Okla. 31, 136 Pac. 1086. Upon examination of the record in this case we are of the opinion that the assignments of error herein are reasonably supported by said record. We, therefore, invoke and apply said rule in this cause.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court of Cartel- county, Okla., with instructions to set said judgment aside and to set aside the order of court overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and to enter an order sustaining the same, and to grant a new trial in said cause, and for such further proceedings as may he proper under the law.

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

HANTS, C.

The petition in error, with the case-made attached, was duly filed in this court on the 27th day of February, A. D. 1914. The plaintiff in error filed his brief on August 7. 1914, but up to this date the defendant in error, has not filed any brief or motions of any kind or offered any excuse for sucb failure. It is a well-established rule of-this court that when the-brief of flue plaintiff in error reasonably appears to support tbe assignments of error, the court will not search the record to ascertain some possible theory on which the case may be affirmed, but if the assignments of error appear to be reasonably supported by the record, the case will be reversed. Butler v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465, 107 Pac. 170; Dievert et al., School Board of District No. 79, v. Rainey et al., 41 Okla. 31, 136 Pac. 1086. Upon examination of the record in this case we are of the opinion that the assignments of error herein are reasonably supported by said record. We, therefore, invoke and apply said rule in this cause.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court of Cartel- county, Okla., with instructions to set said judgment aside and to set aside the order of court overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and to enter an order sustaining the same, and to grant a new trial in said cause, and for such further proceedings as may he proper under the law.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 749, 159 P. 258, 59 Okla. 257, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-whitlow-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack