Love Motor Co. v. Croskell
LOVE MOTOR CO. v. CROSKELL Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court of Carter county in an action wherein the Love Motor Company was plaintiff and II. H. Croskell, Jr., and. II. B. Baker were defendants. The plaintiff in error has served and filed briefs in this cause as required by the rules of this court. The defendants in error have failed to file briefs or offer any excuse for their failure to do so. We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error, and its assignments of error are reasonably supported by the authorities cited therein. Under the oft-repeated holding of this court, we are not required to brief the ease on behalf of the defendants in error or to search the record to find some reason why the judgment appealed from should be sustained. Home State Bank v. Oklahoma State Bank, 51 Okla. 368 , 151 Pac. 1044 . The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the canse remanded for a new trial.
Note. — See “Appeal and Error.” 3 C. J. § 1607. p. 1447, n. 46.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.