TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wilcox v. Wootton

Wilcox v. Wootton, 1916 OK 770, 159 P. 1118
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 12, 1916
Docket
No. 7345
Judges
Brunson
Citations
159 P. 11181916 OK 77060 Okla. 2041916 Okla. LEXIS 1326
Disposition
Motion sustained.
Syllabus
1. Appeal and Error — Briefs—Dismissal. Where plaintiff in error fails to file briefs in the Supreme Court in compliance with the rules and orders of the court, his appeal will be dismissed. 2. Appeal and Error — Supersedeas Bond— Sureties. In a case appealed to the Supreme Court, where supersedeas bond has been given and approved staying execution and the judgment here is against the appellant, this court, by virtue of the provisions of chapter 249, Sess. Laws 1915, will enter judgment against the sureties on such supersedeas bond. (Syllabus by Brunson, C.)
Summary
Error from County Court, Greer County; R. M. Thacker, Judge. Action by V. R. Wootton against T. S. Wilcox. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. On mo.tion •to dismiss and for judgment against the sureties on supersedeas bond.

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

Opinion of the Court — Brunson

Opinion by BRUNSON, O.

On the 9th day of November, A. D. 1914, a trial was had in this case in the court below, which resulted in a verdict and judgment against the plaintiff in error in the sum of $183.55. A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and the case is here on appeal from said judgment.

A motion is filed in this court by the defendant in error, asking that the appeal be dismissed because no brief has been filed by the plaintiff in error. No brief has been filed by the plaintiff in error in compliance with the rules of this court, and no excuse is offered .why the same has not been done, and for that reason the motion is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed. In said motion it is also asked that, in the event the appeal is dismissed by this court, judgment be rendered against the sureties on the supersedeas bond filed and approved in the trial court, staying execution on the judgment so entered in said cause. On appeal to this court from said judgment a supersedeas bond -was filed and approved in the trial court, the same being executed by the plaintiff in error as principal, and Loyd Cox, M. A. Johnson, W. A. Fitzgerald, L. W. Lee, and J. F. McMillan as sureties, to stay said judgment. By virtue-of the'provisions of chapter 249 of the Session Laws of 1915, as construed in the case of Long v. Lang, 49 Okla. 342 , 152 Pac. 1078 , and Butts v. Rothschild Bros. Hat Co., 60 Okla. —, 159 Pac. 245 , the motion for judgment against the said sureties on the super-sedeas bond is sustained.

Judgment is therefore entered in this court against Loyd Cox, M. A. Johnson. W. A. Fitzgerald. L. W. Lee, and J. F. McMillan in the sum of $183.55, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from and after the 9th day of November, A. D. 1914, and all costs of this action.

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.

1917: 21918: 11921: 119172026peak 1917 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cleveland Petroleum Refining Co. v. Bonner1918 OK 240, 172 P. 639
  2. Oklahoma City v. Page1917 OK 217, 165 P. 164
  3. Rumley v. Sanders1917 OK 107, 162 P. 949
  4. Johnson v. Henshaw1921 OK 33, 195 P. 486

Most recent

  1. Johnson v. Henshaw1921 OK 33, 195 P. 486
  2. Cleveland Petroleum Refining Co. v. Bonner1918 OK 240, 172 P. 639
  3. Oklahoma City v. Page1917 OK 217, 165 P. 164
  4. Rumley v. Sanders1917 OK 107, 162 P. 949

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Long v. O. R. Lang & Co., 1915 OK 886, 152 P. 1078 19
Butts v. Rothschild Bros. Hat Co., 159 P. 245 (Okla. 1916) 1

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