Viersen v. Stanfill

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Viersen v. Stanfill

1952 OK 109, 242 P.2d 162, 206 Okla. 184, 1952 Okla. LEXIS 540

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 18, 1952

DocketNo. 35152

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1952 OK 109 (Viersen v. Stanfill) 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

Viersen v. Stanfill, 1952 OK 109, 242 P.2d 162, 206 Okla. 184, 1952 Okla. LEXIS 540 (Okla. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVISON, J.

Plaintiffs in error have appealed from a judgment against them in the trial court and on September 28, 1951, filed their brief. The authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of error. The defendants in error have filed no brief and have offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances, as stated in Fore v. Fore, 203 Okla. 75, 218 P. 2d 366, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon [185]*185which to sustain the action of the trial crurt, but the cause will be reversed and remanded with directions.

The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to vacate the judgment entered for D. A. Stanfill and Martha E. Stanfill for attorney’s fee.

HALLEY, Y. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, GIBSON, JOHNSON, O’NEAL, and BINGAMAN, JJ., concur.

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

DAVISON, J.

Plaintiffs in error have appealed from a judgment against them in the trial court and on September 28, 1951, filed their brief. The authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of error. The defendants in error have filed no brief and have offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances, as stated in Fore v. Fore, 203 Okla. 75, 218 P. 2d 366, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon [185]*185which to sustain the action of the trial crurt, but the cause will be reversed and remanded with directions.

The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to vacate the judgment entered for D. A. Stanfill and Martha E. Stanfill for attorney’s fee.

HALLEY, Y. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, GIBSON, JOHNSON, O’NEAL, and BINGAMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1952 OK 109, 242 P.2d 162, 206 Okla. 184, 1952 Okla. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viersen-v-stanfill-okla-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack