Waltham Piano Co. v. Wolcott

1913 OK 549, 135 P. 339, 38 Okla. 770, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 436
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided September 22, 1913·No. 4076·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

TURNER, J.

As an investigation of the case-made discloses that certain letters evidencing the contract upon which defendant recovered in the trial court are omitted therefrom, and the briefs of plaintiff in error disclose that the errors relied upon for reversal cannot be passed upon without a consideration of the evidence, the motion to dismiss is sustained, and that, too, although the case-made recites that it contains “all the evidence offered, introduced, or received upon the trial.” Anderst v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 19 Okla. 206, 91 Pac. 894; Ragains v. Geiser Mfg. Co., 10 Okla. 544, 63 Pac. 687; Arnold v. Moss, 27 Okla. 524, 112 Pac. 995; Pierce v. Engelkeimeier, 10 Okla. 308, 61 Pac. 1047; Citizens' Bank & Trust Co. v. Dill, 30 Okla. 1, 118 Pac. 374.

*771 Although this second motion to dismiss was served and subsequently filed, January 13, 1913, the same has received no response from plaintiff in error. Dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Waltham Piano Co. v. Wolcott, 1913 OK 549, 135 P. 339, 38 Okla. 770, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 436 (Okla. 1913).

1913 OK 549 (Waltham Piano Co. v. Wolcott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harrison v. Harman
1925 OK 937 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Midland Valley Railroad v. Gibson
1923 OK 834 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Haggerty v. Terwilliger
1917 OK 588 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
In Re Colling's Guardianship
1914 OK 177 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Graham v. Atwood
1913 OK 691 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)