Whitney v. Liberty Nat. Bank

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Whitney v. Liberty Nat. Bank

1933 OK 109, 19 P.2d 164, 162 Okla. 74, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 501

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 14, 1933

Docket22749

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1933 OK 109 (Whitney v. Liberty Nat. Bank) 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

Whitney v. Liberty Nat. Bank, 1933 OK 109, 19 P.2d 164, 162 Okla. 74, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 501 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER OURIAM.

Petition in error and ease-made were filed herein August 120, 1931, and on the 28th day of that same month motion to dismiss was filed.

The ease has never otherwise been briefed by the plaintiffs in error except that on November 4, 1981, they responded to the motion to dismiss and urge that if the case-made was never filed 'after being properly served and settled, the same is a transcript. They also urge that the petition shows on its face that the action is premature, but there is no assignment of such error, and if it is covered by the general assignment that the court erred as a hiatter of law, it is raised for the first time in this court. And it appears that upon the most liberal theory in favor of plaintiffs in error it would take some evidence to remove the presumption from the record that the action was properly brought.

This case must, therefore, be dismissed under the rule that no case-made was settled and served as by law required, and that it is apparent on the face of the record that the appeal is frivolous.

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

PER OURIAM.

Petition in error and ease-made were filed herein August 120, 1931, and on the 28th day of that same month motion to dismiss was filed.

The ease has never otherwise been briefed by the plaintiffs in error except that on November 4, 1981, they responded to the motion to dismiss and urge that if the case-made was never filed 'after being properly served and settled, the same is a transcript. They also urge that the petition shows on its face that the action is premature, but there is no assignment of such error, and if it is covered by the general assignment that the court erred as a hiatter of law, it is raised for the first time in this court. And it appears that upon the most liberal theory in favor of plaintiffs in error it would take some evidence to remove the presumption from the record that the action was properly brought.

This case must, therefore, be dismissed under the rule that no case-made was settled and served as by law required, and that it is apparent on the face of the record that the appeal is frivolous.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 109, 19 P.2d 164, 162 Okla. 74, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-liberty-nat-bank-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack