From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hastings v. Morris

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Dec 18, 1923
96 Okla. 249 (Okla. 1923)

Summary

In Morris v. Hastings, 70 Tex. 26, 7 S.W. 649, 8 Am.St.Rep. 570, it is said, quoting from the headnotes, that: "When notice of a judicial sale has not been properly given, if objection be made by defendant in execution without unnecessary delay, the sale may be set aside; if objection be not made in reasonable time, it will be considered as waived."

Summary of this case from Scott v. McGlothlin

Opinion

No. 14729

Opinion Filed December 18, 1923.

(Syllabus.)

Appeal and Error — Absence of Answer Brief — Reversal.

Where defendant in error has failed to file a brief or offer any excuse therefor, and the brief of plaintiff in error reasonably sustains the assignments of error, the judgment may be reversed.

Error from District Court, Cherokee County; J.T. Parks, Judge.

Action by W.W. Hastings against H.M. Morris. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Vance, Bliss Paden and W.W. Hastings, for plaintiff in error.

E.B. Arnold, for defendant in error.


This is an appeal from the district court of Cherokee county. There was judgment rendered for the defendant, motion for new trial filed and overruled, and appeal properly perfected in this court. The plaintiff in error has filed his brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and defendant in error has neither filed brief nor offered excuse for failure so to do. The brief of plaintiff in error appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, and under the numerous authorities of this court, this court is not required to search the record to find a theory upon which the judgment may be sustained, but it may be reversed in accordance with the petition of plaintiff in error.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the court is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to set aside the judgment heretofore rendered and grant the plaintiff in error a new trial.

JOHNSON, C. J., and NICHOLSON, COCHRAN, and MASON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hastings v. Morris

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Dec 18, 1923
96 Okla. 249 (Okla. 1923)

In Morris v. Hastings, 70 Tex. 26, 7 S.W. 649, 8 Am.St.Rep. 570, it is said, quoting from the headnotes, that: "When notice of a judicial sale has not been properly given, if objection be made by defendant in execution without unnecessary delay, the sale may be set aside; if objection be not made in reasonable time, it will be considered as waived."

Summary of this case from Scott v. McGlothlin
Case details for

Hastings v. Morris

Case Details

Full title:HASTINGS v. MORRIS

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Dec 18, 1923

Citations

96 Okla. 249 (Okla. 1923)
221 P. 490

Citing Cases

Patton Wellborne v. Collier

Such sale is valid without an actual levy if the property is present when sold. Rev. Stats., art. 2319;…

Patton Wellborne v. Collier

Carrigan Montgomery, for appellants. — 1. If a valid judgment foreclosing a vendor's lien on certain personal…