Wichita Falls & N. W. R. Co. v. Robinson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Wichita Falls & N. W. R. Co. v. Robinson

158 P. 893, 60 Okla. 41, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1260

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 11, 1916

Docket7248

StatusPublished

This text of 158 P. 893 (Wichita Falls & N. W. R. Co. v. Robinson) 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

Wichita Falls & N. W. R. Co. v. Robinson, 158 P. 893, 60 Okla. 41, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1260 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

RUMMONS, C.

The plaintiff in error in this case duly perfected its appeal from the judgment of the court below by filing its petition in error, with the case-made attached, in this court on March 20, 1915. Thereafter it duly served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, which brief seems to sustain the assignments of error made by plaintiff in error. The defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so. The rule of this court that, where the brief of the plaintiff in error rea-on-’bly appears to support the assignments of error, this court will not search the record to ascertain same possible theory uoon which the case may be affirmed, but, if the assignments of error appe'-r to be reasonably sup^o-ted by the record and the brief, the case will be reversed, is therefore applicable.

The judgment of the court below should be reversed and the cause remanded.

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

RUMMONS, C.

The plaintiff in error in this case duly perfected its appeal from the judgment of the court below by filing its petition in error, with the case-made attached, in this court on March 20, 1915. Thereafter it duly served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, which brief seems to sustain the assignments of error made by plaintiff in error. The defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so. The rule of this court that, where the brief of the plaintiff in error rea-on-’bly appears to support the assignments of error, this court will not search the record to ascertain same possible theory uoon which the case may be affirmed, but, if the assignments of error appe'-r to be reasonably sup^o-ted by the record and the brief, the case will be reversed, is therefore applicable.

The judgment of the court below should be reversed and the cause remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 P. 893, 60 Okla. 41, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wichita-falls-n-w-r-co-v-robinson-okla-1916.