From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Brien v. Cummings

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Dec 12, 1933
27 P.2d 821 (Okla. 1933)

Summary

In O'Brien v. Cummings, 13 Mo. App. 197, the St. Louis Court of Appeals held that a provision in a corporate charter was void which read "No person shall subscribe, own, or hold more than ten thousand dollars worth of said stock, estimating the same at the par value of each share."

Summary of this case from State ex Inf. Huffman v. Sho-Me Power Co-op

Opinion

No. 23805

December 12, 1933.

(Syllabus.)

Appeal and Error — Reversal Where Defendant in Error Fails 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 District Court, Coal County; P.L. Gassaway, Judge.

Action by Will Cummings against W.J. O'Brien, county treasurer, in mandamus. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

James R. Wood, for plaintiff in error.

E. Moore, for defendant in error.


On the 6th day of January, 1932, Will Cummings obtained a judgment in the district court of Coal county, Okla., directing the county treasurer to pay a certain judgment out of the sinking fund, and on the 1st day of July, 1932, the county treasurer filed his petition in error with case-made attached, and on the 10th day of August, 1932, filed a brief in which the assignments of error and the authorities cited reasonably support the contention that the judgment was erroneous.

No brief has been filed by the defendant in error, and no excuse given for the failure to file the brief, and no further time has been applied for or obtained in which to file brief. Under the rule announced by this court, the case is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to vacate the judgment entered and dismiss the action. Durham v. Brown, 164 Okla. 139, 24 P.2d 295; McCrory v. High, 162 Okla. 75, 19 P.2d 144.


Summaries of

O'Brien v. Cummings

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Dec 12, 1933
27 P.2d 821 (Okla. 1933)

In O'Brien v. Cummings, 13 Mo. App. 197, the St. Louis Court of Appeals held that a provision in a corporate charter was void which read "No person shall subscribe, own, or hold more than ten thousand dollars worth of said stock, estimating the same at the par value of each share."

Summary of this case from State ex Inf. Huffman v. Sho-Me Power Co-op

In O'Brien v. Cummings, 13 Mo. App. 197, quoted in Thompson, Corporations, § 216, it was said: "The general statute (R.S., Ch. 21), when aroused into specific operation by a compliance with its terms on the part of an association of persons and capital, unites itself with the terms and details of such a compliance; the law and the articles of association become, as it were, the compact between the state and the association, and this constitutes a charter of the body politic.

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Ross v. Anderson
Case details for

O'Brien v. Cummings

Case Details

Full title:O'BRIEN v. CUMMINGS

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Dec 12, 1933

Citations

27 P.2d 821 (Okla. 1933)
27 P.2d 821

Citing Cases

State ex Inf. Huffman v. Sho-Me Power Co-op

25; In re Holyoke, Holyoke v. Millman, 151 Wis. 551, 139 N.W. 392; Barrett v. King, 181 Mass. 476, 63 N.E.…

State ex Rel. Ross v. Anderson

Bent v. Underdown, 156 Ind. 516. In O'Brien v. Cummings, 13 Mo. App. 197, quoted in Thompson, Corporations, §…