Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Dill

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Dill

1914 OK 415, 155 P. 202, 44 Okla. 1, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 629

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 14, 1912

Docket1457

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK 415 (Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Dill) 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

Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Dill, 1914 OK 415, 155 P. 202, 44 Okla. 1, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 629 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

HARRISON, C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Pontotoc county. The petition in error was filed in this court March 3, 1910. The cause, was assigned for submission at the November term, 1911. No briefs have been filed for plaintiff in error; no counsel noted for defendants in error.

Rule 7 of this court, 38 Okla. vii, 137 Pac. ix, requires the plaintiff in error in each civil cause to serve his brief on counsel for defendant in error within forty days after the petition in error has been filed, and at the same time file fifteen copies of his brief with the clerk of the court. Although more than a year and a half elapsed between the time of filing the petition in error and the time the cause was reached for submission, and although more than six months has elapsed since same, was .assigned for submission, the plaintiff in error has filed no brief in support of its assignments. By thus failing to comply with rule 7, ante, plaintiff is deemed to have waived its right to have its appeal heard in this court. Following Le Breteon v. Swartzel, 14 Okla. 521, 78 Pac. 323; Walker et al. v. Hannewincle, 24 Okla. 521, 103, Pac. 585; Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 Pac. 838, the appeal is dismissed.

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

HARRISON, C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Pontotoc county. The petition in error was filed in this court March 3, 1910. The cause, was assigned for submission at the November term, 1911. No briefs have been filed for plaintiff in error; no counsel noted for defendants in error.

Rule 7 of this court, 38 Okla. vii, 137 Pac. ix, requires the plaintiff in error in each civil cause to serve his brief on counsel for defendant in error within forty days after the petition in error has been filed, and at the same time file fifteen copies of his brief with the clerk of the court. Although more than a year and a half elapsed between the time of filing the petition in error and the time the cause was reached for submission, and although more than six months has elapsed since same, was .assigned for submission, the plaintiff in error has filed no brief in support of its assignments. By thus failing to comply with rule 7, ante, plaintiff is deemed to have waived its right to have its appeal heard in this court. Following Le Breteon v. Swartzel, 14 Okla. 521, 78 Pac. 323; Walker et al. v. Hannewincle, 24 Okla. 521, 103, Pac. 585; Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 Pac. 838, the appeal is dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 415, 155 P. 202, 44 Okla. 1, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spaulding-mfg-co-v-dill-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack