Hancock v. Shockman
Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory
Appeal from the United States Court for the Northern District; Joseph A. Gill, Judge. Replevin by Bertha Shockman against W. M. Hancock and others. Froih judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the United States Court for the Northern District; Joseph A. Gill, Judge. Replevin by Bertha Shockman against W. M. Hancock and others. Froih judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. The plaintiff below (appellee here) instituted this action of replevin against the defendants below (appellants here), and on July 31, 1897, filed her amended complaint, and alléged: That the defendant S. M. Rutherford is the United States marshal for the Northern district of the Indian Territory, “and as such there came into his hands a certain writ of execution issued out of the above-styled court…
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
It is evident that the appellants in this case have wholly failed to comply with the rules of this court in their specifications of error. Section 2 of rule 10 specifically states what appellants’ brief shall contain, and the order in which the same shall be stated. Subsection 2 of said section 2 provides as follows: “A specification of the errors relied upon in law cases shall set out separately and particularly each error asserted and intended to be urged. * * * When the error alleged is to the admission or to the rejection of evidence, the specification shall quote the full substance of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1892
- McKinney v. DembySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- Going v. OrnsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- Bracken v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
- Davison v. GibsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.