From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

VAN SMITH v. COLEMAN ET AL

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Sep 21, 1915
151 P. 1018 (Okla. 1915)

Opinion

No. 5468

Opinion Filed September 21, 1915.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Failure to File Brief — Decision. Where plaintiff in error fails to file briefs, as required by rule 7 (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix), this court may continue the cause, dismiss the appeal, or affirm the judgment, in its discretion; and where a motion to affirm is filed, no answer to which is made, and an examination of the record does not disclose any prejudicial error, the judgment will be affirmed.

(Syllabus by Devereux, C.)

Error from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.

Action by Mary Coleman and another against H. Van Smith. From the judgment, Van Smith brings error. Affirmed.

Clark J. Tisdel, for plaintiff in error.

S.E. Gidney, for defendants in error.


This cause was filed in this court on August 14, 1913, and was submitted on September 13, 1915. The plaintiff in error has filed no briefs, nor asked for any extension of time within which to do so, nor given any excuse for failure to comply with rule 7 (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix). The defendants in error have filed a motion, service of which was duly accepted by counsel for plaintiff in error, to affirm judgment. We have examined the record and case-made, and see no reason why the motion should not be granted.

We therefore recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.


Summaries of

VAN SMITH v. COLEMAN ET AL

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Sep 21, 1915
151 P. 1018 (Okla. 1915)
Case details for

VAN SMITH v. COLEMAN ET AL

Case Details

Full title:VAN SMITH v. COLEMAN et al

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Sep 21, 1915

Citations

151 P. 1018 (Okla. 1915)
151 P. 1018

Citing Cases

McGirt v. Fleet

In such case it is the well-settled rule in this court that this court may, in its discretion, dismiss the…