Le Breton v. Swartzel
| Decision Date | 03 September 1904 |
| Citation | 14 Okla. 521,1904 OK 103,78 P. 323 |
| Parties | LE BRETON v. SWARTZEL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
¶0 1. Rule 6 of the rules of practice of this court (71 Pac. x), requires the plaintiff in error to serve a brief on counsel for defendant in error within 40 days after filing his petition in error, and at the same time to file 15 copies of said brief with the clerk of the Supreme Court. In case of failure to comply with these requirements, the court may dismiss the cause, or may reverse or affirm the judgment.
2. It is not the duty of this court to search a record to discover errors not pointed out. A judgment is presumptively correct, and, in the absence of a brief in support of a petition inerror, this court will generally, in civil causes, rely upon such presumption and dismiss the appeal.
3. A failure to file a brief is a waiver of the right to be heard on appeal.
J. W. Clark, for plaintiff in error. A. M.
Baladwin, for defendant in error.
¶1 This cause appears to be an appeal from a judgment of the probate court of Canadian county. There are no briefs on file. The petition in error is accompanied by a transcript of the record. There is no bill of exceptions or case -made. The transcript contains several motions, objections, and other papers on file in the cause, which are no part of the record, and could only be made so by bill of exceptions or case-made. The record contains no exception to the final judgment of the probate court, and there was no motion for a new trial or review in the trial court.
¶2 The rules of this court require a plaintiff in error to serve a brief on counsel for defendant in error within 40 days after the petition in error is filed, and at the same time to file 15 copies of his brief with the clerk of the Supreme Court. The purpose of a brief is to point out and specifically designate the alleged errors relied upon for a reversal of the judgment, and it is the duty of persons bringing cases into this court to affirmatively show error in the record. Judgments of courts of record are presumptively regular and valid, and, where no error is pointed out or made to affirmatively appear, an appellate court will ordinarily rely upon such presumption of regularity and dismiss the appeal.
¶3 It is not the duty of an appellate court to search the record for the purpose of discovering error. While it may waive the filing of a brief, and may review any errors contained in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mo., O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Wortman
...same rule in effect was promulgated and put into force by the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma, and the case of LeBreton v. Swartzel, 14 Okla. 521, 78 P. 323, is an instance of its enforcement. The same procedure has been adopted by this court in a number of cases. Horner et al. v......
-
Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Dill
...comply with rule 7, ante, plaintiff is deemed to have waived its right to have its appeal heard in this court. Following Le Breton v. Swartzel, 14 Okla. 521, 78 P. 323; Walker et al. v. Hannewincle, 24 Okla. 152, 103 P. 585; Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 P. 838, the appeal is dismisse......
-
Davis v. Elliott
...to file his brief in support of his petition in error, he has waived his right to have his appeal heard in this court. Le Breton v. Swartzel, 14 Okla. 521, 78 P. 323; Walker et al. v. Hannewincle, 24 Okla. 152, 103 P. 585. ¶2 This proceeding is dismissed. ¶3 All the Justices concur. ...
-
Connor v. Leaverette
...on which the execution was issued having been rendered in a court of record, the same is presumptively regular and valid. Le Breton v. Swartzel, 14 Okla. 521, 78 P. 323. The burden is upon the plaintiff in error in seeking to have the execution quashed. Caldwell not having been made a party......