From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lawless v. Pitchford

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 14, 1911
126 P. 782 (Okla. 1911)

Opinion

No. 1067

Opinion Filed November 14, 1911. Rehearing Denied October 1, 1912.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Brief — Effect of Defects. Rule 25 of this court (20 Okla. xii, 95 Pac. viii) provides: "The brief shall contain the specifications of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered; the argument and authorities in support of each point relied on, in the same order." Held, that, where the brief does not substantially comply with this provision, the appeal will be dismissed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Craig County Court; Theodore D. B. Frear, Judge.

Action between P. J. Lawless and A. J. Pitchford, guardian. From the judgment, Lawless brings error. Dismissed.

Parker Rider, for plaintiff in error.

Paul F. Mackey, for defendant in error.


Rule 25 of this court (20 Okla. xii, 95 Pac. viii) provides in part as follows:

"The brief shall contain the specifications of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered; the argument and authorities in support of each point relied on, in the same order."

The brief of the plaintiff in error in no respect complies with the provisions of said rule.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES, KANE, and DUNN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lawless v. Pitchford

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 14, 1911
126 P. 782 (Okla. 1911)
Case details for

Lawless v. Pitchford

Case Details

Full title:LAWLESS v. PITCHFORD

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Nov 14, 1911

Citations

126 P. 782 (Okla. 1911)
126 P. 782

Citing Cases

Worrell et al. v. Fellows

The original brief of plaintiffs in error in this case in no respect complies with the provisions of said…

McDonald Coal Co. v. Equitable Powder Mfg. Co.

Plaintiff in error has not set out in his brief, as required by rule 25 (20 Okla. xii, 95 Pac. viii), any…