Yauk v. Rogers

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Yauk v. Rogers

1916 OK 464, 157 P. 301, 157 P. 801, 57 Okla. 641, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 563

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 18, 1916

Docket6716

StatusPublished

This text of 1916 OK 464 (Yauk v. Rogers) 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

Yauk v. Rogers, 1916 OK 464, 157 P. 301, 157 P. 801, 57 Okla. 641, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 563 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

GALBRAITH, C.

Frank S. Rogers, as plaintiff, commenced this action against Godlieb B. Yauk, as defendant, to quiet title to a strip of land 19 rods wide, extending across the south side of the N. E. V4, of section 23, township 29 north, range 22 west, located in Harper county. Theré was a trial to the court and a jury and a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $55. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict for the amount thereof, and quieting title to the strip in dispute in the plaintiff.- To review that judgment the cause has been brought to this court.

The petition in error and case-made were filed in this court July 22, 1914. The cause was regularly submitted December 6, 1915. The brief and argument in behalf of the plaintiff in error were filed November 3, 1915. The defendant in error has filed no reply brief, nor given any satisfactory reason for not doing so.

Inasmuch as the brief of the plaintiff in error reasonably tends to support the assignments of error, following Ta ylor v. Wade & Co., 44 Okla. 294, 144 Pac. 559, and the cases cited therein, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

GALBRAITH, C.

Frank S. Rogers, as plaintiff, commenced this action against Godlieb B. Yauk, as defendant, to quiet title to a strip of land 19 rods wide, extending across the south side of the N. E. V4, of section 23, township 29 north, range 22 west, located in Harper county. Theré was a trial to the court and a jury and a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $55. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict for the amount thereof, and quieting title to the strip in dispute in the plaintiff.- To review that judgment the cause has been brought to this court.

The petition in error and case-made were filed in this court July 22, 1914. The cause was regularly submitted December 6, 1915. The brief and argument in behalf of the plaintiff in error were filed November 3, 1915. The defendant in error has filed no reply brief, nor given any satisfactory reason for not doing so.

Inasmuch as the brief of the plaintiff in error reasonably tends to support the assignments of error, following Ta ylor v. Wade & Co., 44 Okla. 294, 144 Pac. 559, and the cases cited therein, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 464, 157 P. 301, 157 P. 801, 57 Okla. 641, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yauk-v-rogers-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack