St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Leathers Bros.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by AMES, C.
From a justice court, where judgment was rendered against the defendant, it appealed to the county court. In the county court, without setting the case for *114 trial, the defendant was adjudged in default because it had not filed an answer and judgment by default was rendered against it upon the theory that on the appeal it was necessary for the defendant to answer, and this is the only question presented in the brief of the plaintiff in error. After the case was set for submission, the defendants in error obtained leave of court to file briefs, but have not done so. It is a settled practice that a written answer is not necessary in a justice court, and that on appeal the case shall be tried upon the original papers upon which the issue was presented to the justice court, unless new pleadings are filed by. leave of court. Section 6388, Comp. Laws 1909;
Johnson v. Acme Harvesting Mach. Co., 24 Okla. 468 , 103 Pac. 638 . This being true, the defendant was not in default, because no written answer was necessary, and was entitled to a trial.
The judgment of the county court should therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.