TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hawkins v. White

HAWKINS Et Al. v. WHITE Et Al.

Hawkins v. White, 1912 OK 38, 120 P. 561
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 9, 1912
Docket
No. 1309
Judges
Kane, Turner, Dunn, Hayes, Williams
Citations
120 P. 5611912 OK 3831 Okla. 1181912 Okla. LEXIS 3
Disposition
Reversed, with directions.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Failure to File Brief — Reversal. Where counsel for plaintiff in error, in conformity with the rules of this court, has prepared, served, and filed a brief, and .there is no brief filed, and no reason given for its absence, on the part of defendant in error, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained; but, where the brief appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, the court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiff in error. (Syllabus by the Court.) Williams, J., dissenting.
Summary
Error from District Court, Murray County; R. McMillan, Judge. Action by E. T. White and Claude Masters, administrators, against Eliza Jane Plawkins and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and 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 — Kane

KANE, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the court below overruling a demurrer to the petition of the plaintiffs below, defendants in error here. Counsel for plaintiffs in error have elaborately briefed the questions involved, but the defendants in error have not favored us with a brief.

We have examined the petition and the authorities cited by counsel for plaintiffs in error, and are of the opinion that the authorities cited support their contention. It has been many times held by this court that, “where cousel for plaintiff in error, in conformity with the rules of this court, has prepared, served, and filed a brief, * * * and there is no brief filed, and no reason given for its absence, on the part of defendants in error, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained; but, where the brief appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, the court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiff in error.”

Upon the authority of those cases the judgment of the court below is reversed, with directions to sustain the demurrer to the petition, and give the plaintiff leave to plead over, if he so desires.

TURNER, C. J., and DUNN and HAYES, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., dissenting.

How later courts describe this case

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

1914: 31915: 11917: 119142026peak 1914 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Miles v. Bird1914 OK 62, 138 P. 789
  2. Midland Elevator Co. v. Harrah1914 OK 519, 143 P. 1168
  3. Butte v. Routh1917 OK 613, 169 P. 891
  4. Clark v. Willis1914 OK 575, 144 P. 587
  5. Messer & Westbrook v. White Sewing MacH. Co.1915 OK 421, 149 P. 1097

Most recent

  1. Butte v. Routh1917 OK 613, 169 P. 891
  2. Messer & Westbrook v. White Sewing MacH. Co.1915 OK 421, 149 P. 1097
  3. Clark v. Willis1914 OK 575, 144 P. 587
  4. Midland Elevator Co. v. Harrah1914 OK 519, 143 P. 1168
  5. Miles v. Bird1914 OK 62, 138 P. 789

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