State Ex Rel. Bynum v. Greer

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

State Ex Rel. Bynum v. Greer

1924 OK 274, 224 P. 164, 101 Okla. 137, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 41

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 4, 1924

Docket15013

StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK 274 (State Ex Rel. Bynum v. Greer) 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. Bynum v. Greer, 1924 OK 274, 224 P. 164, 101 Okla. 137, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 41 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

This was an action by the state, on the relation of Ernest T. Bynum, Bank Commissioner, against T. C. Greer, court clerk of Tillman county, seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the defendant to number and file a petition tendered him for filing, and to issue a summons in accordance with the praecipe sought to be filed, in a cause wherein the state on the relation of the said Bank Commissioner was plaintiff, and one R. Dugan was defendant, without requiring the plaintiff to make a cash deposit, or cost bond as required of other litigants. The trial court denied the writ, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in accordance with the rules and orders of this court, but the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so. Under these circumstances, this court will not search the record in an effort to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the aitthorities in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34; Godfrey v. Pounds, 86 Okla. 76, 206 Pac. 516: In re Estate of Enos Nichols, 86 Okla. 181, 207 Pac. 93.

However, we have examined the record, as well as the brief of the plaintiff in error, and the authorities cited therein, and are convinced that the court erred in denying the plaintiff the relief sought. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant the writ of mandamus as prayed for.

JOHNSON, C. J.. and KENNAMER, COCHRAN, BRANSON, and MASON, JJ., concur.

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

NICHOLSON, J.

This was an action by the state, on the relation of Ernest T. Bynum, Bank Commissioner, against T. C. Greer, court clerk of Tillman county, seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the defendant to number and file a petition tendered him for filing, and to issue a summons in accordance with the praecipe sought to be filed, in a cause wherein the state on the relation of the said Bank Commissioner was plaintiff, and one R. Dugan was defendant, without requiring the plaintiff to make a cash deposit, or cost bond as required of other litigants. The trial court denied the writ, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in accordance with the rules and orders of this court, but the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so. Under these circumstances, this court will not search the record in an effort to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the aitthorities in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34; Godfrey v. Pounds, 86 Okla. 76, 206 Pac. 516: In re Estate of Enos Nichols, 86 Okla. 181, 207 Pac. 93.

However, we have examined the record, as well as the brief of the plaintiff in error, and the authorities cited therein, and are convinced that the court erred in denying the plaintiff the relief sought. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant the writ of mandamus as prayed for.

JOHNSON, C. J.. and KENNAMER, COCHRAN, BRANSON, and MASON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 274, 224 P. 164, 101 Okla. 137, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bynum-v-greer-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack