United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Walker

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Walker

1924 OK 278, 226 P. 1026, 104 Okla. 90, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 358

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 4, 1924

Docket12435

StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK 278 (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Walker) 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

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Walker, 1924 OK 278, 226 P. 1026, 104 Okla. 90, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 358 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

MAXEY, C.

This case was filed in this court on July 6, 1921. Plaintiff in error has filed an elaborate brief and also argued the ease orally before Division No. 1 of the Supreme Court Commission. Plaintiff’s brief was filed on July 23, 1923. The defendant in error has not filed any brief, although he has obtained an extension of time twice, and the last extension is long since expired and no brief yet filed, and under the rules of this court where defendant in error fails to file a brief ,and 'brief filed by plaintiff reasonably tends to support the assignments of error, it is not the duty of the Supreme Court to search the record with a view of ascertaining some possible theory on which the judgment might be affirmed, but the court will reverse the case and remand it for a new trial. Tabby v. McMurray, 30 Okla. 602, 120 Pac. 664; Austin v. Campbell, 54 Okla. 671, 154 Pac. 514; Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle v. Dugan, 57 Okla. 193, 156 Pac. 1194; Alex *91 ander v. Johnson, 65 Okla. 57, 162 Pac. 948; Olentine v. Backbone, 64 Okla. 164, 166 Pac. 127; National Surety Company v. Jones, 68 Okla. 274, 170 Pac. 1146; Loveland v. Tant, 75 Okla. 12, 181 Pac. 302; Harrison v. Koehler, 82 Okla. 26, 198 Pac. 295.

The case on the above authorities is reversed and remanded to the trial court to set aside the judgment, heretofore rendered, and grant a new trial.

.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

MAXEY, C.

This case was filed in this court on July 6, 1921. Plaintiff in error has filed an elaborate brief and also argued the ease orally before Division No. 1 of the Supreme Court Commission. Plaintiff’s brief was filed on July 23, 1923. The defendant in error has not filed any brief, although he has obtained an extension of time twice, and the last extension is long since expired and no brief yet filed, and under the rules of this court where defendant in error fails to file a brief ,and 'brief filed by plaintiff reasonably tends to support the assignments of error, it is not the duty of the Supreme Court to search the record with a view of ascertaining some possible theory on which the judgment might be affirmed, but the court will reverse the case and remand it for a new trial. Tabby v. McMurray, 30 Okla. 602, 120 Pac. 664; Austin v. Campbell, 54 Okla. 671, 154 Pac. 514; Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle v. Dugan, 57 Okla. 193, 156 Pac. 1194; Alex *91 ander v. Johnson, 65 Okla. 57, 162 Pac. 948; Olentine v. Backbone, 64 Okla. 164, 166 Pac. 127; National Surety Company v. Jones, 68 Okla. 274, 170 Pac. 1146; Loveland v. Tant, 75 Okla. 12, 181 Pac. 302; Harrison v. Koehler, 82 Okla. 26, 198 Pac. 295.

The case on the above authorities is reversed and remanded to the trial court to set aside the judgment, heretofore rendered, and grant a new trial.

.By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 278, 226 P. 1026, 104 Okla. 90, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-v-walker-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack