From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Tulsa v. Stroud

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Jan 18, 1938
75 P.2d 434 (Okla. 1938)

Opinion

No. 27993.

January 18, 1938.

(Syllabus.)

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

Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, the 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. Tulsa County; Floyd E. Staley, Judge.

Action by C.F. Stroud against the City of Tulsa for damages. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

H.O. Bland, Milton W. Hardy, and E.M. Gallaher, for plaintiff in error.

Chambers Wortman, for defendant in error.


On July 6, 1937, plaintiff in error filed petition in error with case-made attached in this court and on August 27, 1937, the brief was filed by the plaintiff in error.

The defendant in error has failed to file any brief or offer any excuse for such failure. The cause is, therefore, reversed and remanded, with directions to vacate and set aside the order and judgment heretofore rendered for the plaintiff and to grant a new trial. Chapman v. Taylor, 163 Okla. 274, 21 P.2d 1058.

OSBORN, C. J., BAYLESS, V. C. J., and RILEY, WELCH, PHELPS, CORN. GIBSON, and HURST, JJ., concur. DAVISON, J., absent.


Summaries of

City of Tulsa v. Stroud

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Jan 18, 1938
75 P.2d 434 (Okla. 1938)
Case details for

City of Tulsa v. Stroud

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF TULSA v. STROUD

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Jan 18, 1938

Citations

75 P.2d 434 (Okla. 1938)
181 Okla. 525

Citing Cases

Hough v. Leonard

An answer brief is required by Rule 1.28. While reversal of a nisi prius decision is never automatic for…