TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reynolds-Davis & Co. v. Hotchkiss

Reynolds-Davis & Co. v. Hotchkiss, 1912 OK 207, 122 P. 165
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 12, 1912
Docket
No. 1312
Judges
Hayes, Turner, Kane, Dunn, Williams
Citations
122 P. 1651912 OK 20731 Okla. 6061912 Okla. LEXIS 103
Disposition
Reversed and remanded.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR. — Review—Reversal—Failure of Defendant in Error to File Brief. Where plaintiff in error has completed his record and filed it in this court, and has served and filed a brief ' in compliance with the rules of the court, and defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for such failure, 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 filed appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, the court may reverse the case in accordance .with the prayer of the petition of plaintiff in error. (Syllabus by.the Court.)
Summary
Error from District Court, Sequoyah County; Jno. H. ■Pitchford,• Judge. Action by Reynolds-Davis & Co. against James E. Hotch-kiss. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings 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 — Hayes

HAYES, J.

This case presents for review the judgment of the court below dismissing plaintiff in error’s action in that court. The motion to dismiss by defendant in error, defendant below, contains three alleged grounds for dismissal. The motion to dismiss was not verified, and the facts set forth in two. of the grounds alleged in the motion are such as the trial court could not, and this court cannot, take judicial knowledge of, and re *607 quired evidence to establish them. The case-made fails to disclose what, if any, evidence was taken at the hearing upon the motion, and what, if any, admissions were made by counsel at the hearing of the motion before the court. Counsel for plaintiff in error in his brief states that certain facts were admitted by all parties in presenting the motion to the court below, and briefs his case upon the theory that such facts are before the court. Plaintiff in error’s brief supporting his assignments of error was promptly filed under the rules of the court; but,' although this cause has been pending more than two years, defendant in error has filed no brief, nor does any reason appear for his failure to do so. We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error, and it seems to sustain both in argument and in the citation of authorities the assignment of error relied upon by him for reversal. We shall, therefore, not examine the record to ascertain if there is any possible theory upon which the judgment of the trial court can be sustained.

Rudd v. Wilson et al., 33 Okla. -, 121 Pac. 252 ;

Butler et al. v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465 , 107 Pac. 170 ;

Ellis et al. v. Outler et al., 25 Okla. 469 , 106 Pac. 957 ;

Buckner v. Okla. Ñat. Bank of Shawnee et al., 25 Okla. 472 , 106 Pac. 959 ;

Sharpleigh Hdw. Co. v. Pritchard et al., 25 Okla. 808 , 108 Pac. 360 ;

Flanagan et al. v. Davis et al., 27 Okla. 422 , 112 Pac. 990 ;

M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Long, 27 Okla. 456 , 112 Pac. 991 ;

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

TURNER, C. J., and KANE and DUNN, JJ„ concur; WILLIAMS, J., not participating. •

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 7

DepthCaseCited by
Ellis v. Outler, 1910 OK 9, 106 P. 957 121
Butler v. McSpadden, 1910 OK 5, 107 P. 170 48
Buckner v. Okla. Nat'l Bank of Shawnee, 1910 OK 4, 106 P. 959 27
A. F. Sharpleigh Hardware Co. v. Pritchard, 1910 OK 55, 108 P. 360 20
Flanagan v. Davis, 1910 OK 325, 112 P. 990 15
Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Long, 1910 OK 348, 112 P. 991 13
Rudd v. Wilson, 1912 OK 147, 121 P. 252 12

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