Livingston v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from District Court, Garfield, County; James B. Cullison, Judge. Action by Noah L. Livingston against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
SHARP, C.
No effort has been made in plaintiff’s brief to comply with rule 25 of this court (38 Okla. x), which requires that the brief of the plaintiff in error shall contain the specifications of error complained of, separately set forth and numbered, and for that reason the appeal could very properly be dismissed. Mahaney v. Union Investment Co., 23 Okla. 533, 101 Pac. 1054; McReynolds v. Phipps et al., 31 Okla. 788, 123 Pac. 1125.
As we understand from a careful reading of plaintiff’s brief, and the assignments of error contained in the petition in error, it is contended that the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. BaroniSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. CrowellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Town of Leroy v. McConnellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- First Nat. Bank of Muskogee v. TevisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Huff v. Territory of OklahomaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1905
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. CollinsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Kelly v. CannSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
- Ferris v. ShandySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Owens v. Turman Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
- Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. BoydSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.