Brigman v. Cheney

Decision Date16 November 1910
Docket NumberCase Number: 1319
Citation112 P. 993,27 Okla. 510,1910 OK 316
PartiesBRIGMAN v. CHENEY.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

1910 OK 316
112 P. 993
27 Okla. 510

BRIGMAN
v.
CHENEY.

Case Number: 1319

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: November 16, 1910


Syllabus

¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR--Appointment of Guardians--Discretion. In the appointment of guardians, the county courts are vested with a sound legal discretion; and their judgments in such cases will not be overruled, unless it is apparent that there has been an abuse of such discretion.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR--Briefs--Assignment of Error--Waiver. Where plaintiff in error fails to set forth in his brief, as required by rule 25 (20 Okla. XIII), argument or citation of authorities in support of any assignment of error, it will be deemed, as to such assignment, that he has waived same.

Error from District Court, Kiowa County; James R Tolbert, Judge.

Petitions by Tula Brigman and Wesley Cheney for appointment as guardian of a minor. From an order appointing Cheney, Brigman brings error. Affirmed.

George L. Zink and Joseph H. Cline, for plaintiff in error.

Morse & Standeven, for defendant in error.

HAYES, J.

¶1 This proceeding presents a contest between plaintiff in error and defendant in error for appointment as guardian of an orphan minor. The minor is about four years old. His father died February 16, 1909, and his mother died on the 5th day of the following July. On the 28th day of July, 1909, defendant in error filed his petition in the county court for appointment as guardian of the person and estate of the child. Upon the 2nd day of the following August, plaintiff in error filed her petition for the same appointment. The two petitions were set down for hearing and were heard by the county judge on the 6th day of the same month. After hearing the evidence in support of both petitions and of each applicant in opposition to the appointment of the other applicant, the court appointed defendant in error. From this order of the court, an appeal was taken by plaintiff in error to the district court, where there was a trial de novo, resulting in the same order as was made by the county court. Reversal of the judgment of the district court is here sought, upon the ground that it is not supported by the evidence. Section 1733 of Wilson's Revised & Annotated Statutes provides that an appeal may be taken to the district court from any judgment or decree or order of the probate court: "First. Granting or refusing or revoking letters testamentary or of administration or of guardianship." Appeals from the county court of the state in all...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT