brief of plaintiffs error in Oklahoma

1951The motion to dismiss must be sustained.- In Brunson v. Emerson et al., 34 Okla. 211 , 124 P. 977 , it is stated: “A ‘brief’ is a written presentation of the questions involved in a forensic controversy and of the matters of fact and of law which demand investigation.

1946It is contended by defendant that the will was not made for the sole benefit of defendant and that defendant’s renouncement of the will and election to take under the law nullified only that portion of the will applying to her but without impairment as to other beneficiaries named in the will, as in Dixon v. Dixon, 191 Okla. 139 , 126 P. 2d 1020 : “In such case the will is properly admitted to probate, but decree of distribution is to be made to the surviving spouse under the law of succession and to all others under the will.” As suggested in the brief of plaintiffs in error, “the controversy

1946It is contended by defendant that the will was not made for the sole benefit of defendant and that defendant’s renouncement of the will and election to take under the law nullified only that portion of the will applying to her but without impairment as to other beneficiaries named in the will, as in Dixon v. Dixon, 191 Okla. 139 , 126 P. 2d 1020 : “In such case the will is properly admitted to probate, but decree of distribution is to be made to the surviving spouse under the law of succession and to all others under the will.” As suggested in the brief of plaintiffs in error, “the controversy

1942In O’Dell v. Sharp, 182 Okla. 534 , 78 P. 2d 810 , we said that where an appeal is filed in this court and the defendant in error on due consideration files a confession of error which is reasonably sustained by the record, this court may reverse and remand the cause upon such confession of error, with directions to proceed in accordance with said allegations of the petition in error.

1942In O’Dell v. Sharp, 182 Okla. 534 , 78 P. 2d 810 , we said that where an appeal is filed in this court and the defendant in error on due consideration files a confession of error which is reasonably sustained by the record, this court may reverse and remand the cause upon such confession of error, with directions to proceed in accordance with said allegations of the petition in error.

1935But in order to sustain such conveyance three things must appear: First, the gift must he proved with reasonable certainty; second, possession of the land must have been taken under the gift; and third, that the donee actually expended money on the 'premises by way of improvements under and in the face of the gift.” Supporting this statement of the law, plaintiffs in error cite Rowe v. Henderson, 4 Ind. Terr. 597, 76 S. W. 250 , holding: “A party claiming land by virtue of a parol gift must, in order to take the conveyance from the statute of frauds, prove the gift with reasonable certainty, t

1935Co. v. McLaughlin, 30 Okla. 20 , 118 P. 380 , the third paragraph of the syllabus reads, in part, as follows: “A party, relying upon the defense of accord and satisfaction, must not-only plead the same in a proper manner, but must prove ■the offer, acceptance, or ratification by the parties. * * *” In the caso of Gentry et al. v. Fife, 56 Okla. 1 , 155 P. 246 , this court held: "The defense of accord and satisfaction must not only be properly pleaded, but the evidence must show a meeting of the minds on the new promise, and that it was made and accepted with the purpose and intent that it shou

1935Co. v. McLaughlin, 30 Okla. 20 , 118 P. 380 , the third paragraph of the syllabus reads, in part, as follows: “A party, relying upon the defense of accord and satisfaction, must not-only plead the same in a proper manner, but must prove ■the offer, acceptance, or ratification by the parties. * * *” In the caso of Gentry et al. v. Fife, 56 Okla. 1 , 155 P. 246 , this court held: "The defense of accord and satisfaction must not only be properly pleaded, but the evidence must show a meeting of the minds on the new promise, and that it was made and accepted with the purpose and intent that it shou

1935Co. v. McLaughlin, 30 Okla. 20 , 118 P. 380 , the third paragraph of the syllabus reads, in part, as follows: “A party, relying upon the defense of accord and satisfaction, must not-only plead the same in a proper manner, but must prove ■the offer, acceptance, or ratification by the parties. * * *” In the caso of Gentry et al. v. Fife, 56 Okla. 1 , 155 P. 246 , this court held: "The defense of accord and satisfaction must not only be properly pleaded, but the evidence must show a meeting of the minds on the new promise, and that it was made and accepted with the purpose and intent that it shou

1935Co. v. McLaughlin, 30 Okla. 20 , 118 P. 380 , the third paragraph of the syllabus reads, in part, as follows: “A party, relying upon the defense of accord and satisfaction, must not-only plead the same in a proper manner, but must prove ■the offer, acceptance, or ratification by the parties. * * *” In the caso of Gentry et al. v. Fife, 56 Okla. 1 , 155 P. 246 , this court held: "The defense of accord and satisfaction must not only be properly pleaded, but the evidence must show a meeting of the minds on the new promise, and that it was made and accepted with the purpose and intent that it shou

1935Co. v. McLaughlin, 30 Okla. 20 , 118 P. 380 , the third paragraph of the syllabus reads, in part, as follows: “A party, relying upon the defense of accord and satisfaction, must not-only plead the same in a proper manner, but must prove ■the offer, acceptance, or ratification by the parties. * * *” In the caso of Gentry et al. v. Fife, 56 Okla. 1 , 155 P. 246 , this court held: "The defense of accord and satisfaction must not only be properly pleaded, but the evidence must show a meeting of the minds on the new promise, and that it was made and accepted with the purpose and intent that it shou

1935Co. v. McLaughlin, 30 Okla. 20 , 118 P. 380 , the third paragraph of the syllabus reads, in part, as follows: “A party, relying upon the defense of accord and satisfaction, must not-only plead the same in a proper manner, but must prove ■the offer, acceptance, or ratification by the parties. * * *” In the caso of Gentry et al. v. Fife, 56 Okla. 1 , 155 P. 246 , this court held: "The defense of accord and satisfaction must not only be properly pleaded, but the evidence must show a meeting of the minds on the new promise, and that it was made and accepted with the purpose and intent that it shou

1933On February 29, 1932, a confession of error was filed, slating that the cases of Threadgill v. Peterson, 95 Okla. 187 , 219 P. 389 , and Wood v. Phillips, 95 Okla. 255 , 219 P. 646 , cited in the brief of plaintiffs in error, are conclusive as to the plaintiffs in error not having been permitted to intervene and be heard in said cause.

1933On February 29, 1932, a confession of error was filed, slating that the cases of Threadgill v. Peterson, 95 Okla. 187 , 219 P. 389 , and Wood v. Phillips, 95 Okla. 255 , 219 P. 646 , cited in the brief of plaintiffs in error, are conclusive as to the plaintiffs in error not having been permitted to intervene and be heard in said cause.

1933On February 29, 1932, a confession of error was filed, slating that the cases of Threadgill v. Peterson, 95 Okla. 187 , 219 P. 389 , and Wood v. Phillips, 95 Okla. 255 , 219 P. 646 , cited in the brief of plaintiffs in error, are conclusive as to the plaintiffs in error not having been permitted to intervene and be heard in said cause.

1933On February 29, 1932, a confession of error was filed, slating that the cases of Threadgill v. Peterson, 95 Okla. 187 , 219 P. 389 , and Wood v. Phillips, 95 Okla. 255 , 219 P. 646 , cited in the brief of plaintiffs in error, are conclusive as to the plaintiffs in error not having been permitted to intervene and be heard in said cause.

1932Argument is made as to the homestead character, under the Constitution of the state and the law as to the subject of making contracts concerning it, and the statute of frauds, and several cases are cited, among others Woodworth v. Franklin, 85 Okla. 27 , 204 P. 452 , and Halsell v. Renfrew, 14 Okla. 674 , 78 P. 118 , and eases are cited with a reference to the law of agency as applied to man and wife, and also as to the necessity for man and wife to join in homestead contracts, and the change from April 10th to April 14th, and time being the essence of the contract, and the alteration of writt

1932Argument is made as to the homestead character, under the Constitution of the state and the law as to the subject of making contracts concerning it, and the statute of frauds, and several cases are cited, among others Woodworth v. Franklin, 85 Okla. 27 , 204 P. 452 , and Halsell v. Renfrew, 14 Okla. 674 , 78 P. 118 , and eases are cited with a reference to the law of agency as applied to man and wife, and also as to the necessity for man and wife to join in homestead contracts, and the change from April 10th to April 14th, and time being the essence of the contract, and the alteration of writt

1932Argument is made as to the homestead character, under the Constitution of the state and the law as to the subject of making contracts concerning it, and the statute of frauds, and several cases are cited, among others Woodworth v. Franklin, 85 Okla. 27 , 204 P. 452 , and Halsell v. Renfrew, 14 Okla. 674 , 78 P. 118 , and eases are cited with a reference to the law of agency as applied to man and wife, and also as to the necessity for man and wife to join in homestead contracts, and the change from April 10th to April 14th, and time being the essence of the contract, and the alteration of writt

1932Argument is made as to the homestead character, under the Constitution of the state and the law as to the subject of making contracts concerning it, and the statute of frauds, and several cases are cited, among others Woodworth v. Franklin, 85 Okla. 27 , 204 P. 452 , and Halsell v. Renfrew, 14 Okla. 674 , 78 P. 118 , and eases are cited with a reference to the law of agency as applied to man and wife, and also as to the necessity for man and wife to join in homestead contracts, and the change from April 10th to April 14th, and time being the essence of the contract, and the alteration of writt

1931Under authority of Taylor v. Taylor, 90 Okla. 128 , 2T5 Pac. 1070; Smith v. Walker, 116 Okla. 213 , 243 Pac. 955 , the judgment is affirmed.

1931Under authority of Taylor v. Taylor, 90 Okla. 128 , 2T5 Pac. 1070; Smith v. Walker, 116 Okla. 213 , 243 Pac. 955 , the judgment is affirmed.

1931Under authority of Taylor v. Taylor, 90 Okla. 128 , 2T5 Pac. 1070; Smith v. Walker, 116 Okla. 213 , 243 Pac. 955 , the judgment is affirmed.

1930We are referred, by the brief of plaintiffs in error, to the cases of Parker v. Parker, 75 Okla. 234 , 182 Pac. 697 ; Weitz v. Moulden. 109 Okla. 119 , 234 Pac. 583 ; Daniel v. Tolou, 53 Okla. 666 , 157 Pac. 756 , and Rector v. Rey, 91 Okla. 14 , 215 Pac. 415 .

1930We are referred, by the brief of plaintiffs in error, to the cases of Parker v. Parker, 75 Okla. 234 , 182 Pac. 697 ; Weitz v. Moulden. 109 Okla. 119 , 234 Pac. 583 ; Daniel v. Tolou, 53 Okla. 666 , 157 Pac. 756 , and Rector v. Rey, 91 Okla. 14 , 215 Pac. 415 .

1930We are referred, by the brief of plaintiffs in error, to the cases of Parker v. Parker, 75 Okla. 234 , 182 Pac. 697 ; Weitz v. Moulden. 109 Okla. 119 , 234 Pac. 583 ; Daniel v. Tolou, 53 Okla. 666 , 157 Pac. 756 , and Rector v. Rey, 91 Okla. 14 , 215 Pac. 415 .

1930We are referred, by the brief of plaintiffs in error, to the cases of Parker v. Parker, 75 Okla. 234 , 182 Pac. 697 ; Weitz v. Moulden. 109 Okla. 119 , 234 Pac. 583 ; Daniel v. Tolou, 53 Okla. 666 , 157 Pac. 756 , and Rector v. Rey, 91 Okla. 14 , 215 Pac. 415 .

1930We are referred, by the brief of plaintiffs in error, to the cases of Parker v. Parker, 75 Okla. 234 , 182 Pac. 697 ; Weitz v. Moulden. 109 Okla. 119 , 234 Pac. 583 ; Daniel v. Tolou, 53 Okla. 666 , 157 Pac. 756 , and Rector v. Rey, 91 Okla. 14 , 215 Pac. 415 .

1930We are referred, by the brief of plaintiffs in error, to the cases of Parker v. Parker, 75 Okla. 234 , 182 Pac. 697 ; Weitz v. Moulden. 109 Okla. 119 , 234 Pac. 583 ; Daniel v. Tolou, 53 Okla. 666 , 157 Pac. 756 , and Rector v. Rey, 91 Okla. 14 , 215 Pac. 415 .

1930We are referred, by the brief of plaintiffs in error, to the cases of Parker v. Parker, 75 Okla. 234 , 182 Pac. 697 ; Weitz v. Moulden. 109 Okla. 119 , 234 Pac. 583 ; Daniel v. Tolou, 53 Okla. 666 , 157 Pac. 756 , and Rector v. Rey, 91 Okla. 14 , 215 Pac. 415 .

1930We are referred, by the brief of plaintiffs in error, to the cases of Parker v. Parker, 75 Okla. 234 , 182 Pac. 697 ; Weitz v. Moulden. 109 Okla. 119 , 234 Pac. 583 ; Daniel v. Tolou, 53 Okla. 666 , 157 Pac. 756 , and Rector v. Rey, 91 Okla. 14 , 215 Pac. 415 .

1929From the brief of plaintiffs in error it appears that this is a com-I>anion case to cause No.. 19627, Leininger et al. v. Ward-Beekman & Brooks, Inc., 139 Okla. 292 ,282 Bad 467, and that the facts are similar except as to the amount claimed, the date of the contract, the date of performance, location of the work, and the units of work *302 performed.

1927United States v. Porter, 260 Fed. 1 ; Norton v. Larny, 266 U. S. 511 . ” Following the second question in the brief of plaintiffs in error quoted, supra, the trial court had to determine who the Dawes Commission had under consideration at the time it listed for final enrollment Monday Yargee.

1927United States v. Porter, 260 Fed. 1 ; Norton v. Larny, 266 U. S. 511 . ” Following the second question in the brief of plaintiffs in error quoted, supra, the trial court had to determine who the Dawes Commission had under consideration at the time it listed for final enrollment Monday Yargee.

1927For under the authority of said case of U. S. v. Porter, 260 Fed. 1 , an allotment went to the person, or his heirs, who was adjudged to be entitled to be enrolled under the name the enrollment was made.

1926Tn Davis et al. v. DeGeer et al., 91 Okla. 111 , 216 Pac. 156 , it is said: “The first question that confronts this court is the question of jurisdiction to consider the assignment of error as presented in the record and the brief of plaintiffs in error.

1926Tn Davis et al. v. DeGeer et al., 91 Okla. 111 , 216 Pac. 156 , it is said: “The first question that confronts this court is the question of jurisdiction to consider the assignment of error as presented in the record and the brief of plaintiffs in error.

1924(Pa:) 86 Atl. 634 .

1924In the case of Chestnut & Smith et al. v. Lynch et al., 84 Okla. 199 , 202 Pac. 1018 , paragraph three of the' syllabus of the opinion held: “A plausible, but not convincing, argument in the brief, unsupported by citation of an authority, is not sufficient to overcome the presumption indulged by the Supreme Court in favor of the correctness of the judgment of the trial court.” And in the case of Roof et al. v. Franks, 26 Okla. 392 , 110 Pac. 1098 : “WJhere the brief of plaintiffs in error fails to contain an abstract statement of the facts, and such other matters required by rule 25 (20 Okla.

1924In the case of Chestnut & Smith et al. v. Lynch et al., 84 Okla. 199 , 202 Pac. 1018 , paragraph three of the' syllabus of the opinion held: “A plausible, but not convincing, argument in the brief, unsupported by citation of an authority, is not sufficient to overcome the presumption indulged by the Supreme Court in favor of the correctness of the judgment of the trial court.” And in the case of Roof et al. v. Franks, 26 Okla. 392 , 110 Pac. 1098 : “WJhere the brief of plaintiffs in error fails to contain an abstract statement of the facts, and such other matters required by rule 25 (20 Okla.

1924Bank of Columbus, Ohio, 23 Okla. 37 , 99 Pac. 641 : *132 “This court will not examine the record in search of prejudicial errors _ which are not clearly pointed out and insisted on, in .the brief of the complaining party, and it is not enough to assert in general terms that the ruling of the trial court is wrong, for on this, the point will not 'be considered as having been made; but counsel should support the same with argument and citation of authority where possible.” And in the case of Turner et al. v. Johnson et al., 86 Okla. 196 , 207 Pac. 555 , the court lays down the following rule: “W

1924Bank of Columbus, Ohio, 23 Okla. 37 , 99 Pac. 641 : *132 “This court will not examine the record in search of prejudicial errors _ which are not clearly pointed out and insisted on, in .the brief of the complaining party, and it is not enough to assert in general terms that the ruling of the trial court is wrong, for on this, the point will not 'be considered as having been made; but counsel should support the same with argument and citation of authority where possible.” And in the case of Turner et al. v. Johnson et al., 86 Okla. 196 , 207 Pac. 555 , the court lays down the following rule: “W

1924Bank of Columbus, Ohio, 23 Okla. 37 , 99 Pac. 641 : *132 “This court will not examine the record in search of prejudicial errors _ which are not clearly pointed out and insisted on, in .the brief of the complaining party, and it is not enough to assert in general terms that the ruling of the trial court is wrong, for on this, the point will not 'be considered as having been made; but counsel should support the same with argument and citation of authority where possible.” And in the case of Turner et al. v. Johnson et al., 86 Okla. 196 , 207 Pac. 555 , the court lays down the following rule: “W

1924Bank of Columbus, Ohio, 23 Okla. 37 , 99 Pac. 641 : *132 “This court will not examine the record in search of prejudicial errors _ which are not clearly pointed out and insisted on, in .the brief of the complaining party, and it is not enough to assert in general terms that the ruling of the trial court is wrong, for on this, the point will not 'be considered as having been made; but counsel should support the same with argument and citation of authority where possible.” And in the case of Turner et al. v. Johnson et al., 86 Okla. 196 , 207 Pac. 555 , the court lays down the following rule: “W

1924In the case of Chestnut & Smith et al. v. Lynch et al., 84 Okla. 199 , 202 Pac. 1018 , paragraph three of the' syllabus of the opinion held: “A plausible, but not convincing, argument in the brief, unsupported by citation of an authority, is not sufficient to overcome the presumption indulged by the Supreme Court in favor of the correctness of the judgment of the trial court.” And in the case of Roof et al. v. Franks, 26 Okla. 392 , 110 Pac. 1098 : “WJhere the brief of plaintiffs in error fails to contain an abstract statement of the facts, and such other matters required by rule 25 (20 Okla.

1924In the case of Chestnut & Smith et al. v. Lynch et al., 84 Okla. 199 , 202 Pac. 1018 , paragraph three of the' syllabus of the opinion held: “A plausible, but not convincing, argument in the brief, unsupported by citation of an authority, is not sufficient to overcome the presumption indulged by the Supreme Court in favor of the correctness of the judgment of the trial court.” And in the case of Roof et al. v. Franks, 26 Okla. 392 , 110 Pac. 1098 : “WJhere the brief of plaintiffs in error fails to contain an abstract statement of the facts, and such other matters required by rule 25 (20 Okla.

1923Plaintiffs in error cite in their brief the case of Anderson v. Chrisman, 37 Okla. 73 , 130 Pac. 539 , and the case of St.

1923Plaintiffs in error cite in their brief the case of Anderson v. Chrisman, 37 Okla. 73 , 130 Pac. 539 , and the case of St.