Case ID: okla_49/html/0520-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KANE, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CARRION v. CARRION.
    No. 4762.
    Opinion Filed July 27, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied December 14, 1915.
    (153 Pac. 189.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Brief—Dismissal. Dismissed for failure to comply with rule 25 (38 Okla. x, 137 Pac. xi), of the Supreme Court.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from District Court, Pawnee County; L. M. Poe, Judge.
    
    Action by Mary Carrion against Francis Carrion. Judgment for plaint.if, and defendant brings error.
    Dismissed.
    
      Biddison & McCollum and A. H. Boles, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Orton & McNeill, for defendant in error.
   KANE, C. J.

The typewritten brief of the plaintiff in error states his grounds for reversal, in substance, as follows: Because the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law in committing error which appears in the record itself and upon the face thereof.

This purported brief contains no citation of authorities, nor does it disclose any attempt on • the part of counsel for plaintiff in error to comply with that part of rule 25 (38 Okla. x, 137 Pac. xi) of this court which provides that in all cases, except felonies, the brief of the plaintiff in error, in substance, shall set forth the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, and documents upon which reliance is had for reversal, so that no examination of the record itself need be made in the Supreme Court.

The authorities are uniform' to the effect that rule 25, which provides that “in all cases, except felonies, the brief of the plaintiff in error in substance shall set forth the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, and facts upon which reliance is had for reversal, so that no examination of the record itself need be made in the Supreme Court,” is mandatory, and, where it is not observed, the alleged errors will not be reviewed. Roof v. Franks, 26 Okla. 392, 110 Pac. 1098; Arkansas Valley Nat. Bank v. Clark, 31 Okla. 413, 122 Pac. 135.

For the reason stated, the appeal herein is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.