TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Duncan Nat. Bank of Duncan v. First Nat. Bank of Walters

Duncan Nat. Bank of Duncan v. First Nat. Bank of Walters, 1923 OK 415, 217 P. 160
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 26, 1923
Docket
No. 11243
Judges
Logsdon
Citations
217 P. 1601923 OK 41591 Okla. 1241923 Okla. LEXIS 687

Opinion of the Court — Logsdon

Opinion ,by LOGSDON, C.

This proceeding in error is prosecuted by Duncan National Bank of Duncan, Okla., again-st the First National Bank of Walters, Okla., to reverse a judgment of the district court of Cotton county in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff, in which action plaintiff had sued to recover the sum of $600 and, $1.14 as protest fees on a certain draft delivered to the.plaintiff by tbe defendant, and on which draft payment had been stopped.

Plaintiff’s brief in this case was served upon the defendant March 20, 1923, and no brief has been filed by the defendant, nor any excuse given for failure so to do. The record of this court does not show any extension, of time granted to the defendant for filing such brief, nor any application therefor. It is a well-established rule of this court that it is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained. Under the circumstances stated, where the brief filed by the plaintiff reasonably sustains-the assignments of ex*ror contained in the petition in error, the judgment will be reversed in'accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Frost v. Haley, 63 Okla. 19 , 161 Pac. 1174 ; Security Ins. Co. v. Droke, 40 Okla. 116 ; 136 Pac. 430 ; J. Rosenbaum Grain Co. v. Higgins, 40 Okla. 181 , 136 Pac. 1073 ; Purcell Bridge & Transfer Co. v. Hine, 40 Okla. 200 , 137 Pac. 668 ; First Nat. Bank of Sallisaw v. Ballard, 41 Okla. 553 , 139 Pac. 293 .

After a careful examination of plaintiff’s brief herein, it is concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the district court *125 of Cotton county, with directions to grant a new trial in the 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.

1923: 21924: 319232026peak 1924 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Adams v. Twerell1923 OK 800, 219 P. 660
  2. Noble v. City of Yale1924 OK 150, 223 P. 125
  3. Sturgill v. Shaffer1924 OK 755, 229 P. 177
  4. Newton v. Witherspoon1923 OK 770, 219 P. 95
  5. Trower v. Dewing1924 OK 759, 229 P. 171

Most recent

  1. Sturgill v. Shaffer1924 OK 755, 229 P. 177
  2. Trower v. Dewing1924 OK 759, 229 P. 171
  3. Noble v. City of Yale1924 OK 150, 223 P. 125
  4. Adams v. Twerell1923 OK 800, 219 P. 660
  5. Newton v. Witherspoon1923 OK 770, 219 P. 95

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Purcell Bridge & Transfer Co. v. Hine, 1913 OK 713, 137 P. 668 14
First Nat. Bank of Sallisaw v. Ballard, 1914 OK 86, 139 P. 293 13
Frost v. Haley, 1916 OK 1053, 161 P. 1174 12
J. Rosenbaum Grain Co. v. Higgins, 1913 OK 693, 136 P. 1073 12
Sec. Ins. Co. v. Droke, 1913 OK 635, 136 P. 430 18

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