From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright et al. v. State

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
May 12, 1914
140 P. 1147 (Okla. 1914)

Opinion

No. 3711

Opinion Filed May 12, 1914.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Want of Briefs — Affirmance. On account of the failure of the plaintiffs in error to serve and file briefs, as prescribed by rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix), the judgment rendered against them in the trial court should be affirmed.

(Syllabus by Galbraith, C.)

Error from Superior Court, Pottawatomie County; Geo. C. Abernathy, Judge.

Action by the State against Thomas H. Wright and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

S. P. Freeling, for plaintiffs in error.

C. P. Holt, Co. Atty., for the State.


This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the state of Oklahoma in the sum of $1,500, and against the plaintiffs in error, as principal and sureties on a forfeited bail bond. The petition in error with case-made was filed in this court March 20, 1912, and the cause was regularly set down for submission and submitted on the 16th day of April, 1914. The plaintiffs in error have not served on filed briefs as required by rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix).

On account of such default and failure, as prescribed in said rule, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Wright et al. v. State

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
May 12, 1914
140 P. 1147 (Okla. 1914)
Case details for

Wright et al. v. State

Case Details

Full title:WRIGHT et al. v. STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: May 12, 1914

Citations

140 P. 1147 (Okla. 1914)
140 P. 1147

Citing Cases

Simmons v. State

On the 12th day of October, the order of dismissal was vacated, and the plaintiff in error given until…

Sherrod v. Dutton

See e.g., Pate v. City of Martin, 614 S.W.2d 46 (Tenn. 1981); Wright et al. v. State, 130 Tenn. 279, 170 S.W.…