TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Thompson v. Murray

THOMPSON Et Al. v. MURRAY

Thompson v. Murray, 1912 OK 554, 125 P. 1133
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 20, 1912
Docket
No. 2655
Judges
Ames
Citations
125 P. 11331912 OK 55434 Okla. 5211912 Okla. LEXIS 439
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Writ of Error — Dismissal. The petition in error and case-made were filed and summons in error issued May 29, 1911. On June 23d defendant in error moved to have the petition in error made more definite and certain, by stating the names of the plaintiffs in error on behalf of whom the petition was prosecuted, which motion was sustained in September 12th. This order was never complied with, and on May 9, 1912, defendant in error moved to dismiss because of such failure, and also because the case had never been briefed. Held that, no response having been made to the motion, nor application made for leave to file briefs out of time, or to then comply with the order, the motion would be sustained. (Syllabus by Ames, 0.)
Summary
Error from District Court, Garvin County; R. McMillan, Judge. Action by W. W. Murray, as guardian for Ayleene and Winnie Irene Carr, against J.'B. Thompson, as trustee for the Roberts-Johnson Rand Shoe Company, and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ames

Opinion by AMES, C.

On May 29, 1911, the petition in error and case-made were filed and summons in error issued. On June 23d the defendant in error filed a motion to make the *522 petition in error more definite and certain, by stating the names of the plaintiffs in error on behalf of whom the petition in error was prosecuted. On September 12th this motion was sustained. The order of the court has never been complied with. On May 9, 1912, the defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for two reasons — one because the case had never been briefed by the plaintiffs in error, as required by the rules of the court, and the other because the order of the court requiring the petition in error to be made more definite and certain had never been complied with. No response has ever been made to this motion, nor has any application been made for. leave to file briefs out of time, or make the petition more definite and certain, as required by the order of the court.

The motion to dismiss the appeal should therefore be sustained.

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.

1913: 51914: 21915: 119132026peak 1913 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bruner v. Nordmeyer1915 OK 495, 150 P. 159
  2. Turner Hardware Co. v. John Deere Plow Co.1913 OK 641, 136 P. 417
  3. Deible v. Union Iron Works1914 OK 81, 139 P. 252
  4. Hill v. City of Kingfisher1913 OK 656, 136 P. 775
  5. Thompson v. Yount1913 OK 673, 136 P. 592
  6. Newcomer v. Freeman1913 OK 511, 134 P. 1199

Most recent

  1. Bruner v. Nordmeyer1915 OK 495, 150 P. 159
  2. Deible v. Union Iron Works1914 OK 81, 139 P. 252
  3. Wallingford v. Wood1914 OK 101, 139 P. 252
  4. Hill v. City of Kingfisher1913 OK 656, 136 P. 775
  5. Thompson v. Yount1913 OK 673, 136 P. 592
  6. Turner Hardware Co. v. John Deere Plow Co.1913 OK 641, 136 P. 417

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list