Legal Opinion

McDonald Coal Co. v. Equitable Powder Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 20, 1913No. 2650PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error from District Court, Okmulgee Gounty; W. L. Barrmm, Judge-. Action between the McDonald Coal Company and the Equitable Powder Manufacturing Company. From the judgment, the Coal Company brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtHayes, C. J.

Plaintiff in error has not set out in his brief, as required by rale 25 (20 Okla. xii, 95 Pac. viii), any specifications of error; nor does the brief contain any statement of the act or ruling of the court of which he eom plains. We are left to infer, from a reading of the entire brief, upon what' grounds lie seeks to reverse the cause; but the court will not review records in this way. Where plaintiff desires to reverse a judgment or order of the trial court, he should, as required by rule 25, challenge the attention of this court by specification of error in his brief to the act or ruling…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lawless v. PitchfordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
  2. Williams v. HaycraftSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Federal Discount Co. v. Gault Bros.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
  2. Kallmeyer v. GarlandSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API