Webber v. Box

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Webber v. Box

1931 OK 356, 298 P. 272, 149 Okla. 295, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 256

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 16, 1931

Docket20981

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK 356 (Webber v. Box) 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

Webber v. Box, 1931 OK 356, 298 P. 272, 149 Okla. 295, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 256 (Okla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Cherokee county in an action wherein the plaintiff in error was plaintiff. The plaintiff in error has served and filed his brief in this cause as required by the rules of this court. The defendants in error have failed to file any brief or offer any excuse -for their failure to do so. We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error, and the assignments of error are reasonably supported by the authorities cited therein. Under the oft-repeated holding of this court, we are not required to brief a cause on behalf of defendant in error, or to search the record to find some reason why the judgment should be sustained. Home State Bank v. Oklahoma State Bank, 51 Okla. 368, 151 Pac. 1044; Love Motor Co. v. Croskell, 141 Okla. 139, 284 Pac. 297. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Cherokee county in an action wherein the plaintiff in error was plaintiff. The plaintiff in error has served and filed his brief in this cause as required by the rules of this court. The defendants in error have failed to file any brief or offer any excuse -for their failure to do so. We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error, and the assignments of error are reasonably supported by the authorities cited therein. Under the oft-repeated holding of this court, we are not required to brief a cause on behalf of defendant in error, or to search the record to find some reason why the judgment should be sustained. Home State Bank v. Oklahoma State Bank, 51 Okla. 368, 151 Pac. 1044; Love Motor Co. v. Croskell, 141 Okla. 139, 284 Pac. 297. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK 356, 298 P. 272, 149 Okla. 295, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webber-v-box-okla-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack