brief of plaintiff error in Oklahoma

1935Also, in the brief of defendant in error we find: Turben v. Douglas et al., 76 Okla. 78 , 183 P. 881 , in accord.

1935Also, in the brief of defendant in error we find: Turben v. Douglas et al., 76 Okla. 78 , 183 P. 881 , in accord.

1933This court has uniformly held in the case of City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233 , 253 P. 481 , that; “Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his 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 in accor

1933This court has uniformly held in the case of City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233 , 253 P. 481 , that: "Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his 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 in accorda

1933This court has uniformly held in the case of City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233 , 253 P. 481 , that; “Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his 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 in accor

1933This court has uniformly held in the case of City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233 , 253 P. 481 , that: "Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his 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 in accorda

1931Here a motion was lodged to dismiss, and finder date of January 29, 1929, this court promulgated its opinion in the cause in which it said: “Upon the second ground for dismissal, that the brief of plaintiff in error does not comply with rule 26 of this court, we have examined the brief of plaintiff in error and fully agree with counsel for defendant in error that the brief of plaintiff in error does not fully comply with rule 26 of this court and is not as complete as rule 26 contemplates.” 'It declined to dismiss the appeal and cautioned the defendant as follows: : ■ “However, we feel that, u

1929However, we feel that, under the holding of this court in Royce Wyant v. Henry Levy and Leon Levy, Partners, No. 18586, 134 Okla. 39 , 272 Pac. at page 851 , we would be running contrary to this decision to sustain the motion to dismiss; yet we desire to-impress, upon counsel for plaintiff in error in this cas'e, and upon counsel that may file briefs in other cases, that it is very much to the interest of their clients to fully comply with rule 26 of this court.

1924DeVitt et al. v. City of El Reno et al., 28 Okla. 315 -318, 114 Pac. 253 ; Eiklor et al. v. Badger. 25 Okla. 853 , 108 Pac. 359 .

1924DeVitt et al. v. City of El Reno et al., 28 Okla. 315 -318, 114 Pac. 253 ; Eiklor et al. v. Badger. 25 Okla. 853 , 108 Pac. 359 .

1961Miller v. Belvy Oil Co., 8 Cir., 248 F. 83 , 160 C.C.A. 223 , and cases therein cited.1 This last contention made in the brief of plaintiff in error belies all suggestion theretofore made that the judgment on the demurrers in the former suit went to technical matters solely and not to the merits.” Also see Kiniry v. Davis, 82 Okl. 211 , 200 P. 439 and Funk v. First National Bank of Miami, 185 Okl. 604 , 95 P.2d 589 .

1961Miller v. Belvy Oil Co., 8 Cir., 248 F. 83 , 160 C.C.A. 223 , and cases therein cited.1 This last contention made in the brief of plaintiff in error belies all suggestion theretofore made that the judgment on the demurrers in the former suit went to technical matters solely and not to the merits.” Also see Kiniry v. Davis, 82 Okl. 211 , 200 P. 439 and Funk v. First National Bank of Miami, 185 Okl. 604 , 95 P.2d 589 .

1961Miller v. Belvy Oil Co., 8 Cir., 248 F. 83 , 160 C.C.A. 223 , and cases therein cited.1 This last contention made in the brief of plaintiff in error belies all suggestion theretofore made that the judgment on the demurrers in the former suit went to technical matters solely and not to the merits.” Also see Kiniry v. Davis, 82 Okl. 211 , 200 P. 439 and Funk v. First National Bank of Miami, 185 Okl. 604 , 95 P.2d 589 .

1961Miller v. Belvy Oil Co., 8 Cir., 248 F. 83 , 160 C.C.A. 223 , and cases therein cited.1 This last contention made in the brief of plaintiff in error belies all suggestion theretofore made that the judgment on the demurrers in the former suit went to technical matters solely and not to the merits.” Also see Kiniry v. Davis, 82 Okl. 211 , 200 P. 439 and Funk v. First National Bank of Miami, 185 Okl. 604 , 95 P.2d 589 .

1961Miller v. Belvy Oil Co., 8 Cir., 248 F. 83 , 160 C.C.A. 223 , and cases therein cited.1 This last contention made in the brief of plaintiff in error belies all suggestion theretofore made that the judgment on the demurrers in the former suit went to technical matters solely and not to the merits.” Also see Kiniry v. Davis, 82 Okl. 211 , 200 P. 439 and Funk v. First National Bank of Miami, 185 Okl. 604 , 95 P.2d 589 .

1961Miller v. Belvy Oil Co., 8 Cir., 248 F. 83 , 160 C.C.A. 223 , and cases therein cited.1 This last contention made in the brief of plaintiff in error belies all suggestion theretofore made that the judgment on the demurrers in the former suit went to technical matters solely and not to the merits.” Also see Kiniry v. Davis, 82 Okl. 211 , 200 P. 439 and Funk v. First National Bank of Miami, 185 Okl. 604 , 95 P.2d 589 .

1954In the brief of plaintiff in error it is stated: “The question involved in this appeal is the right of plaintiffs, without alleging and proving negligence, to recover damages from the defendant under Article II, Sections 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, to a brick building owned by plaintiffs, where defendant, pursuant to a contract with the City of Oklahoma City, constructed a city sewer in the parking along the side and in close proximity to said brick building and in digging the ditch for said sewer caused vibrations by driving and .pulling steel pilings which damaged

1954In the brief of plaintiff in error it is stated: “The question involved in this appeal is the right of plaintiffs, without alleging and proving negligence, to recover damages from the defendant under Article II, Sections 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, to a brick building owned by plaintiffs, where defendant, pursuant to a contract with the City of Oklahoma City, constructed a city sewer in the parking along the side and in close proximity to said brick building and in digging the ditch for said sewer caused vibrations by driving and .pulling steel pilings which damaged

1954In the brief of plaintiff in error it is stated: “The question involved in this appeal is the right of plaintiffs, without alleging and proving negligence, to recover damages from the defendant under Article II, Sections 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, to a brick building owned by plaintiffs, where defendant, pursuant to a contract with the City of Oklahoma City, constructed a city sewer in the parking along the side and in close proximity to said brick building and in digging the ditch for said sewer caused vibrations by driving and .pulling steel pilings which damaged

1954In the brief of plaintiff in error it is stated: “The question involved in this appeal is the right of plaintiffs, without alleging and proving negligence, to recover damages from the defendant under Article II, Sections 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, to a brick building owned by plaintiffs, where defendant, pursuant to a contract with the City of Oklahoma City, constructed a city sewer in the parking along the side and in close proximity to said brick building and in digging the ditch for said sewer caused vibrations by driving and .pulling steel pilings which damaged

1954Under the rule announced in Railway Express Agency v. Stephens, 183 Okl. 615 , 83 P.2d 858 , the assignments of error not hereinafter mentioned are deemed waived for the reason that they have not been supported by argument and authorities.

1954Under the rule announced in Railway Express Agency v. Stephens, 183 Okl. 615 , 83 P.2d 858 , the assignments of error not hereinafter mentioned are deemed waived for the reason that they have not been supported by argument and authorities.

1952Whitney v. Harris, 157 Okla. 186 , 11 P. 2d 153 ; Flanary v. Briscoe, 189 Okla. 34 , 113 P. 2d 366 ; Whitson v. Bell, 171 Okla. 389 , 43 P. 2d 73 ; Richards v. Claxton, 79 Okla. 133 , 192 P. 199 . ■ In Whitson v. Bell, supra, we said: “Where, from an examination of the petition in error, the brief and the proceedings filed in this court, it appears that the appeal is without merit the same will be dismissed.” Appeal dismissed.

1952Whitney v. Harris, 157 Okla. 186 , 11 P. 2d 153 ; Flanary v. Briscoe, 189 Okla. 34 , 113 P. 2d 366 ; Whitson v. Bell, 171 Okla. 389 , 43 P. 2d 73 ; Richards v. Claxton, 79 Okla. 133 , 192 P. 199 . ■ In Whitson v. Bell, supra, we said: “Where, from an examination of the petition in error, the brief and the proceedings filed in this court, it appears that the appeal is without merit the same will be dismissed.” Appeal dismissed.

1952Whitney v. Harris, 157 Okla. 186 , 11 P. 2d 153 ; Flanary v. Briscoe, 189 Okla. 34 , 113 P. 2d 366 ; Whitson v. Bell, 171 Okla. 389 , 43 P. 2d 73 ; Richards v. Claxton, 79 Okla. 133 , 192 P. 199 . ■ In Whitson v. Bell, supra, we said: “Where, from an examination of the petition in error, the brief and the proceedings filed in this court, it appears that the appeal is without merit the same will be dismissed.” Appeal dismissed.

1952Whitney v. Harris, 157 Okla. 186 , 11 P. 2d 153 ; Flanary v. Briscoe, 189 Okla. 34 , 113 P. 2d 366 ; Whitson v. Bell, 171 Okla. 389 , 43 P. 2d 73 ; Richards v. Claxton, 79 Okla. 133 , 192 P. 199 . ■ In Whitson v. Bell, supra, we said: “Where, from an examination of the petition in error, the brief and the proceedings filed in this court, it appears that the appeal is without merit the same will be dismissed.” Appeal dismissed.

1952Whitney v. Harris, 157 Okla. 186 , 11 P. 2d 153 ; Flanary v. Briscoe, 189 Okla. 34 , 113 P. 2d 366 ; Whitson v. Bell, 171 Okla. 389 , 43 P. 2d 73 ; Richards v. Claxton, 79 Okla. 133 , 192 P. 199 . ■ In Whitson v. Bell, supra, we said: “Where, from an examination of the petition in error, the brief and the proceedings filed in this court, it appears that the appeal is without merit the same will be dismissed.” Appeal dismissed.

1952Whitney v. Harris, 157 Okla. 186 , 11 P. 2d 153 ; Flanary v. Briscoe, 189 Okla. 34 , 113 P. 2d 366 ; Whitson v. Bell, 171 Okla. 389 , 43 P. 2d 73 ; Richards v. Claxton, 79 Okla. 133 , 192 P. 199 . ■ In Whitson v. Bell, supra, we said: “Where, from an examination of the petition in error, the brief and the proceedings filed in this court, it appears that the appeal is without merit the same will be dismissed.” Appeal dismissed.

1952Whitney v. Harris, 157 Okla. 186 , 11 P. 2d 153 ; Flanary v. Briscoe, 189 Okla. 34 , 113 P. 2d 366 ; Whitson v. Bell, 171 Okla. 389 , 43 P. 2d 73 ; Richards v. Claxton, 79 Okla. 133 , 192 P. 199 . ■ In Whitson v. Bell, supra, we said: “Where, from an examination of the petition in error, the brief and the proceedings filed in this court, it appears that the appeal is without merit the same will be dismissed.” Appeal dismissed.

1952Whitney v. Harris, 157 Okla. 186 , 11 P. 2d 153 ; Flanary v. Briscoe, 189 Okla. 34 , 113 P. 2d 366 ; Whitson v. Bell, 171 Okla. 389 , 43 P. 2d 73 ; Richards v. Claxton, 79 Okla. 133 , 192 P. 199 . ■ In Whitson v. Bell, supra, we said: “Where, from an examination of the petition in error, the brief and the proceedings filed in this court, it appears that the appeal is without merit the same will be dismissed.” Appeal dismissed.

1950Atkinson v. Shaffer, 187 Okla. 262 , 102 P. 2d 943 ; Jones et al. v. Bob Cason Motor Co., 191 Okla. 332 , 129 P. 2d 840 .

1950Atkinson v. Shaffer, 187 Okla. 262 , 102 P. 2d 943 ; Jones et al. v. Bob Cason Motor Co., 191 Okla. 332 , 129 P. 2d 840 .

1950Smith v. Aronoff, 179 Okla. 560 , 67 P. 2d 447 ; Humphreys v. Liberty National Bank, 180 Okla. 44 , 67 P. 2d 790 .

1950Atkinson v. Shaffer, 187 Okla. 262 , 102 P. 2d 943 ; Jones et al. v. Bob Cason Motor Co., 191 Okla. 332 , 129 P. 2d 840 .

1950Since it appears from what has been said that the authorities relied on are not pertinent to the questions involved and that the questions must be decided adversely upon the application of well established law, the appeal comes clearly within the rule stated in Damaras v. Dance, 164 Okla. 63 , 22 P. 2d 1035 , as follows: “Where, from an examination of the authorities cited, record of the case, and the brief of plaintiff in error, it clearly appears that the appeal is without merit, the cause will be dismissed.” Named as defendants in error are others than those moving to dismiss.

1950Since it appears from what has been said that the authorities relied on are not pertinent to the questions involved and that the questions must be decided adversely upon the application of well established law, the appeal comes clearly within the rule stated in Damaras v. Dance, 164 Okla. 63 , 22 P. 2d 1035 , as follows: “Where, from an examination of the authorities cited, record of the case, and the brief of plaintiff in error, it clearly appears that the appeal is without merit, the cause will be dismissed.” Named as defendants in error are others than those moving to dismiss.

1950Smith v. Aronoff, 179 Okla. 560 , 67 P. 2d 447 ; Humphreys v. Liberty National Bank, 180 Okla. 44 , 67 P. 2d 790 .

1950Smith v. Aronoff, 179 Okla. 560 , 67 P. 2d 447 ; Humphreys v. Liberty National Bank, 180 Okla. 44 , 67 P. 2d 790 .

1950Atkinson v. Shaffer, 187 Okla. 262 , 102 P. 2d 943 ; Jones et al. v. Bob Cason Motor Co., 191 Okla. 332 , 129 P. 2d 840 .

1950Smith v. Aronoff, 179 Okla. 560 , 67 P. 2d 447 ; Humphreys v. Liberty National Bank, 180 Okla. 44 , 67 P. 2d 790 .

1943It is only in the brief of plaintiff in error that this matter is referred to, and the case of Dodd v. State, 5 Okla.

1943Cr. 513 , 115 P. 632 , is cited.

1938In the brief of plaintiff in error is cited the second syllabus of the ease of Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220 , 184 P. 586 , as follows: “In an action in ejectment, a former judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, between the same parties and involving the same subject-matter, is conclusive as to the respective parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter involved in the former case, but as to every matter germane to the issues, which could or might have been litigated and determined therein, whether the same was pleaded or not; but such judgment does not have the

1938In the brief of plaintiff in error is cited the second syllabus of the ease of Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220 , 184 P. 586 , as follows: “In an action in ejectment, a former judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, between the same parties and involving the same subject-matter, is conclusive as to the respective parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter involved in the former case, but as to every matter germane to the issues, which could or might have been litigated and determined therein, whether the same was pleaded or not; but such judgment does not have the

1938In the brief of plaintiff in error is cited the second syllabus of the ease of Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220 , 184 P. 586 , as follows: “In an action in ejectment, a former judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, between the same parties and involving the same subject-matter, is conclusive as to the respective parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter involved in the former case, but as to every matter germane to the issues, which could or might have been litigated and determined therein, whether the same was pleaded or not; but such judgment does not have the

1938In the brief of plaintiff in error is cited the second syllabus of the ease of Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220 , 184 P. 586 , as follows: “In an action in ejectment, a former judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, between the same parties and involving the same subject-matter, is conclusive as to the respective parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter involved in the former case, but as to every matter germane to the issues, which could or might have been litigated and determined therein, whether the same was pleaded or not; but such judgment does not have the