TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Taylor v. Taylor

Taylor v. Taylor, 1923 OK 325, 215 P. 1070
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 29, 1923
Docket
No. 11606
Judges
McNeill, Johnson, Kennamek, Nici-Iolson, Cochran, JJ-
Citations
215 P. 10701923 OK 32590 Okla. 1281923 Okla. LEXIS 1129

Opinion of the Court — McNEILL

*129 McNEILL, J.

This action was commenced in the district court of Nowata county by Melissa Taylor against W. W. Taylor, under what is now section 514, Comp. Stats. 1921, for alimony. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000, and defendant appealed.

The brief of plaintiff in error for reversal contains no assignments of error, nor does the same comply with rule 26 of this court ( 47 Okla. x ). Plaintiff in error states in his brief as follows:

“We take it, before Mrs. Taylor can le-galley recover, she must establish some legal ground for divorce. Section 514, Comp. Stats. 1921; Bradsell v. Bradsell, 33 Kan. 433 , 6 Pac. 561 .”

It may be assumed that plaintiff in error intended to present the question that the evidence is .•insufficient to support the judgment, or the judgment is clearly against the weight of the evidence. Defendant failed to set out an abstract of any of the evidence to support his contention, while the plaintiff in her brief abstracted the testimony, which appears to be sufficient to support the judgment of the court. The rule prevailing in this court is that error is never presumed, and the burden is upon the plaintiff in error to show by his brief that error was committed. The brief of plaintiff in error fails to do this. This court is not obliged to examine the record for the purpose of finding some theory upon which the case may be reversed.

The case-made contains a copy of the supersedeas bond executed by W. W. Taylor, principal, Sam L. Taylor, Neal Sanders, and Lee Taylor, sureties, and judgment is entered against the sureties for the amount of the judgment, interest and costs.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of trial court is affirmed.

JOHNSON. C. J., and KENNAMEK, NICI-IOLSON, and COCHRAN, JJ-, concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1923: 11931: 31937: 11951: 11978: 11982: 219232026peak 1931 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Craig v. State ex rel. Com'rs of the Land Office1931 OK 39, 296 P. 394
  2. Cherry v. Boyles1931 OK 494, 6 P.2d 1049
  3. Smith v. Smith579 P.2d 841 (Okla. Civ. App. 1978)
  4. In re J. B.1982 OK 40, 643 P.2d 306
  5. Kaskaskia Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Harvey Bros.1923 OK 829, 219 P. 672
  6. Douglas v. Martin1951 OK 44, 228 P.2d 1021

Most recent

  1. In re JB1982 OK 40, 643 P.2d 306
  2. In re J. B.1982 OK 40, 643 P.2d 306
  3. Smith v. Smith579 P.2d 841 (Okla. Civ. App. 1978)
  4. Douglas v. Martin1951 OK 44, 228 P.2d 1021
  5. Hebble v. Abernathy, Howell Abernathy1937 OK 279, 67 P.2d 970
  6. Cherry v. Boyles1931 OK 494, 6 P.2d 1049

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Birdzell v. Birdzell ex rel. Tucker, 33 Kan. 433 (1885) 25

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