State Ex Rel. Brooks v. School Dist. No. 86

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

State Ex Rel. Brooks v. School Dist. No. 86

1923 OK 208, 214 P. 686, 89 Okla. 142, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 1022

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 10, 1923

Docket11062

StatusPublished

This text of 1923 OK 208 (State Ex Rel. Brooks v. School Dist. No. 86) 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

State Ex Rel. Brooks v. School Dist. No. 86, 1923 OK 208, 214 P. 686, 89 Okla. 142, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 1022 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff in error, as plaintiff below, against the defendants in error, as defendants below, to recover double the amount of certain funds of the school district alleged to have been misappropriated by the defendants Austin, Wilkes, and Brown, as members of the school board; the action being brought under the provisions ■of sections 6777 and 6778-, Rev. Laws 1910.

After the evidence had been introduced the court, upon motion of the defendants, directed the jury to return a verdict in their favor, and upon the verdict so returned, judgment was duly rendered. Prom this judgment the plaintiff has appealed, and insists that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants.

The defendants in error have not seen fit to file a brief in accordance with the rules o£ this court, and under these circumstances the court is not required to search the record to find some theory ñpóii which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34. However, we have examined Ihe record, and are convinced that the evidence introduced on behalf of the plaintiff, together with the inferences and conclusions which might be reasonably drawn therefrom, was sufficient to sustain a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor had ome been returned, and this being true, it was error for the court to direct a verdict for the defendants. Chestnutt-Gibbons Grocer Co. v. Consumers’ Fruit Co., 44 Okla. 318, 144 Pac. 591; Duncan Cotton Oil Co. v. Cox, 41 Okla. 633, 139 Pac. 270; Solts v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Co., 28 Okla. 706, 115 Pac. 776.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

JOHNSON, C. J., and McNEILL, KANE, KENNLAME'R, BRANSON, and COCHRAN, JJ., concur.

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

NICHOLSON, J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff in error, as plaintiff below, against the defendants in error, as defendants below, to recover double the amount of certain funds of the school district alleged to have been misappropriated by the defendants Austin, Wilkes, and Brown, as members of the school board; the action being brought under the provisions ■of sections 6777 and 6778-, Rev. Laws 1910.

After the evidence had been introduced the court, upon motion of the defendants, directed the jury to return a verdict in their favor, and upon the verdict so returned, judgment was duly rendered. Prom this judgment the plaintiff has appealed, and insists that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants.

The defendants in error have not seen fit to file a brief in accordance with the rules o£ this court, and under these circumstances the court is not required to search the record to find some theory ñpóii which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34. However, we have examined Ihe record, and are convinced that the evidence introduced on behalf of the plaintiff, together with the inferences and conclusions which might be reasonably drawn therefrom, was sufficient to sustain a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor had ome been returned, and this being true, it was error for the court to direct a verdict for the defendants. Chestnutt-Gibbons Grocer Co. v. Consumers’ Fruit Co., 44 Okla. 318, 144 Pac. 591; Duncan Cotton Oil Co. v. Cox, 41 Okla. 633, 139 Pac. 270; Solts v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Co., 28 Okla. 706, 115 Pac. 776.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

JOHNSON, C. J., and McNEILL, KANE, KENNLAME'R, BRANSON, and COCHRAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 208, 214 P. 686, 89 Okla. 142, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 1022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-brooks-v-school-dist-no-86-okla-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack