Blue v. Bd. of Com'Rs of Garvin Co.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 11257 |
| Citation | 1921 OK 165,82 Okla. 178,198 P. 850 |
| Parties | BLUE v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF GARVIN CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Appeal and Error--Briefs--Citation of Authority. A plausible, but not convincing, argument in the brief, unsupported by citation of 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.
John A. McClure and Albert Rennie, for plaintiff in error.
Monroe Osborn, Co. Atty., and Mac Q. Williamson, Asst. Co. Atty., for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Garvin county holding that the lands allotted to freedmen of the Chickasaws, by virtue of the provisions of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, are subject to taxation. The district court held said lands were taxable, and from said judgment the plaintiff has appealed. Plaintiff in error in his brief concedes that this identical question was decided adversely to him by this court in the case of Allen v. Trimmer, 45 Okla. 83, 144 P. 795, but urges that said appeal is taken in accordance with the suggestion of this court in the case of Farris v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., 72 Okla. 220, 179 P. 919 Counsel for plaintiff in error suggest that his position is expressed in the dissenting opinion rendered in the former case of Allen v. Trimmer, supra. No authorities are cited to support the contention of plaintiff in error that the former opinion of this court is erroneous. Counsel for plaintiff in error concede there is a difference between the status of the Choctaw freedman, which was the question involved in the case of Farris v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., supra, and the status of the Chickasaw freedman, in this, to wit: That when the grant was made to the Choctaws, the negroes had been admitted to tribal membership, but the Chickasaw freedmen were not. This is a very important question in the case, and was discussed in the opinion in the case of Allen v. Trimmer, supra. No authorities are cited by plaintiff in error to support the contention that the former opinion of this court is erroneous, and this court in a long line of decisions has stated:
"A plausible, but not convincing, argument in the brief, unsupported by citation of 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carignano v. Box
... ... Blue v. Board of County Commissioners of Garvin County, 82 Okla. 178, 198 P. 850.'"Calling the court's ... ...
-
Bd. of Ed. of City of Sapulpa v. Am. Nat. Bank
...correctness of the judgment of the trial court.' Arbuckle Min., etc., Co. v. Beard, 56 Okla. 144 155 P. 1138." Blue v. Bd. of Com'rs of Garvin Co., 82 Okla. 178, 198 P. 850. But where a judgment is so manifestly erroneous that argument or authorities are unnecessary this court will correct ......
-
Drum Standish Comm'n Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Okla. City
...the presumption indulged by the Supreme Court in favor of the correctness of the judgment of the trial court." Blue v. Board of County Commissioners, 82 Okla. 178, 198 P. 850. See, also, Chestnut & Smith et al. v. Lynch et al., 84 Okla. 199, 202 P. 1018; Carignano v. Box, 97 Okla. 184, 223 ......
-
Smith v. Ogle
...The presumption of correctness of the action of the trial court in that connection will therefore prevail. Blue v. Board of Commissioners of Garvin County, 82 Okla. 178, 198 P. 850. ¶13 Defendants finally contend that plaintiff's cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, and ......