From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berry v. Woodward

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Apr 15, 1913
133 P. 1127 (Okla. 1913)

Opinion

No. 2510

Opinion Filed April 15, 1913. Rehearing Denied July 15, 1913.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Affirmance — Insufficient Brief. Dismissed for failure to comply with rule 25 of this court (20 Okla. xii, 95 Pac. viii).

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from District Court, Tulsa County; L. M. Poe, Judge.

Action by William E. Berry against Herbert E. Woodward and others. Judgment for defendants on demurrer, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

John D. Wakely, for plaintiff in error.


This is an appeal from the action of the court below in sustaining a demurrer to the petition of the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below. As counsel for the plaintiff in error has not complied with rule 25 (20 Okla. xii, 95 Pac. viii) of this court by setting forth material parts of the petition against which the demurrer was directed, the court declines to review the question raised. The rule requires that:

"The brief of the plaintiff in error in all cases except felonies shall contain an abstract or abridgment of the transcript, setting forth the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents upon which he relies, together with such other statements from the record as are necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented to this court for decision, so that no examination of the record itself need be made in this court."

A substantial compliance with this rule is mandatory.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.


Summaries of

Berry v. Woodward

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Apr 15, 1913
133 P. 1127 (Okla. 1913)
Case details for

Berry v. Woodward

Case Details

Full title:BERRY v. WOODWARD et al

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Apr 15, 1913

Citations

133 P. 1127 (Okla. 1913)
133 P. 1127

Citing Cases

Oriental Cement Plaster Co. v. Roman Nose Gypsum Co.

The plaintiff in error has failed to serve or file a brief as required by rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi,…

Moore v. Adams

— the judgment of the court below is affirmed. Berry v. Woodward et al., 38 Okla. 468, 133 P. 1127; McKain v.…