From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McDonald v. Dooley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Sep 29, 1936
61 P.2d 190 (Okla. 1936)

Opinion

No. 25902.

September 29, 1936.

(Syllabus.)

Appeal and Error — Reversal — Failure of Defendant in Error to File Brief.

Where the plaintiff in error has served and filed brief in compliance with the rules of court, but the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for its failure to do so, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause with directions.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Oklahoma County; J.T. Dickerson, Judge.

Action by H.J. McDonald against Floyd C. Dooley, Trustee, et al. upon a contract for the purchase of oil. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Stanley B. Catlett, for plaintiff in error.

Monnet Savage, for defendants in error.


This cause was tried and a judgment rendered for the defendants, denying the application of the plaintiff for a new trial. The plaintiff prosecuted an appeal and filed his petition in error on September 29, 1934, and on June 29, 1935, filed his brief, which reasonably sustains the allegations of his petition in error.

Defendant in error has filed no brief nor offered any excuse for such failure. The cause is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial.

McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and BAYLESS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McDonald v. Dooley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Sep 29, 1936
61 P.2d 190 (Okla. 1936)
Case details for

McDonald v. Dooley

Case Details

Full title:McDONALD v. DOOLEY et al

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Sep 29, 1936

Citations

61 P.2d 190 (Okla. 1936)
61 P.2d 190

Citing Cases

Poarch v. Finkelstein

Obviously, the cause was reversed under the rule that this court is not required to search the record to find…