Case Name: CULBERTSON et al. v. WALTON TRUST CO. et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1915-10-12
Citations: 49 Okla. 103
Docket Number: No. 7302
Parties: CULBERTSON et al. v. WALTON TRUST CO. et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 103–104

Head Matter:
CULBERTSON et al. v. WALTON TRUST CO. et al.
No. 7302.
Opinion Filed October 12, 1915.
(152 Pac. 355.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Frivolous Appeal — Dismissal. Where an appeal is manifestly and palpably frivolous, it will be dismissed in this court upon proper motion filed and showing made to the court.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Swperior Court, Muskogee County; H. C. Thurman, Judge.
Action by the Walton Trust Company, a corporation, against Elmer E. Seay and others. .Judgment for plain tiff, and defendants J. C. Culbertson and another bring error.
Dismissed.
Chas. F. Runyan, for nlaintiffs in error.
Furry & Motter, for defendant in error Walton Trust Company.

Opinion:
BROWN, J.
In the lower court the Walton Trust Company; a corporation, brought suit against Elmer E. and Matilda Seay upon notes secured by a mortgage, and asked the court for a judgment of foreclosure against them and against H. R. Denton, J. C. Culbertson, the Muskogee National Bank, of Muskogee, Okla., and Henry M. Minch. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff against all of the defendants as prayed for. From this judgment, J. C. Culbertson and the Muskogee National Bank of-Muskogee, Okla., a corporation, appeal. Defendant in error filed a m,otion to dismiss, and plaintiffs in error filed a response thereto.
¡We have examined the record and believe that the appeal is a frivolous one, and should therefore be dismissed. Sheil v. Winters, 45 Okla. 525, 146 Pac. 220; Kirkland v. Trezevant, 38 Okla. 445, 134 Pac. 1198; Skirvin v. Goldstein, 40 Okla. 315, 137 Pac. 1176; Skirvin v. Bass Fur. & Car. Co., 43 Okla. 440, 143 Pac. 190; Patterson v. Barnwell, 47 Okla. 34, 147 Pac. 1197; Bennett v. Meek, 45 Okla. 326, 145 Pac. 767.
For the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss is sustained.
All the Justices concur.