Thomason v. Champlin

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Thomason v. Champlin

1915 OK 286, 148 P. 991, 46 Okla. 405, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 1180

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 11, 1915

Docket4359

StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK 286 (Thomason v. Champlin) 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

Thomason v. Champlin, 1915 OK 286, 148 P. 991, 46 Okla. 405, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 1180 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

WATTS, C.

This action was commenced in the- district court of Okfuskee county on December 6, 1911, by H. C. Champ-lin, the defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the lower court, against Lee’ Thomason, Maud Thomason, Charles L. Phillips, and James M. Hayes, plaintiffs in error, who were defendants in the lower court. It seems that the defendant in error filed his petition in the trial court, seeking to quiet title to certain lots situated in he town of Weleetka. Answer was filed, and in due course issues were joined, and judgment was rendered in fayor of defend *406 ;ant in error and against the plaintiffs in error. Case-made was filed in this court September 14, 1912. Summons in error was issued on the date last mentioned, and was served on defendant in error and returned and filed with the clerk of this court on ■September 18, 1912; but neither of the parties have filed briefs, and the ease having been submitted, and no application for exten■sion of time in which to file briefs having been filed, we recommend that the case be dismissed for want of prosecution under -Tule No. 7 of this court (38 Okla, vi, 137 Pac. ix).

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

WATTS, C.

This action was commenced in the- district court of Okfuskee county on December 6, 1911, by H. C. Champ-lin, the defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the lower court, against Lee’ Thomason, Maud Thomason, Charles L. Phillips, and James M. Hayes, plaintiffs in error, who were defendants in the lower court. It seems that the defendant in error filed his petition in the trial court, seeking to quiet title to certain lots situated in he town of Weleetka. Answer was filed, and in due course issues were joined, and judgment was rendered in fayor of defend *406 ;ant in error and against the plaintiffs in error. Case-made was filed in this court September 14, 1912. Summons in error was issued on the date last mentioned, and was served on defendant in error and returned and filed with the clerk of this court on ■September 18, 1912; but neither of the parties have filed briefs, and the ease having been submitted, and no application for exten■sion of time in which to file briefs having been filed, we recommend that the case be dismissed for want of prosecution under -Tule No. 7 of this court (38 Okla, vi, 137 Pac. ix).

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 286, 148 P. 991, 46 Okla. 405, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 1180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomason-v-champlin-okla-1915.