Case Name: ROURKE v. GERLACH-BARKLOW CO.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1915-11-25
Citations: 104 Okla. 239
Docket Number: No. 13840
Parties: ROURKE v. GERLACH-BARKLOW CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
ROURKE v. GERLACH-BARKLOW CO.
No. 13840
Opinion Filed Nov. 25, 1915.
Appeal and Error — Defective Brief — Dismissal. •
Where plaintiff in error fails to set forth in.his brief the specifications of error complained of, the argument and authorities in support thereof as required by rule 26 of this court (87 Okla. xxiii, 165 Pac. ix), but merely states that the judgment is not supported by law or evidence, there is nothing presented for this court to review and the appeal will be dismissed.
(Syllabus byi Jarman, O.)
Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 2.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Edward Dewes Oldfield, Judge.
Action by the Gerlach-Barklow Company against S. A. Rourke, doing business as Southwest Transfer & Storage Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Appeal dismissed.
Gasper Edwards, for plaintiff in error.
Pierce, McClelland & Kneeland, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion byi
JARMAN, C.
The brief filed by plaintiff in error contains the following statement:
"The judgment is not supported by law or evidence."
There is no specification of error, of which complaint is made, set out in the brief of the plaintiff in error, other than that the judgment is not supported by law or evidence. Presumably, this was an action on a contract, and the defendant, plaintiff in error here, contends that said contract was breached on the part of the plaintiff, defendant in error here, and for that reason the defendant is not liable. It is not pointed out in the brief wherein said contract was breached, and no authorities at all are cited to support the contentions of plaintiff in error, and under rule 26 of this court (87 Okla. xxiii, 165 Pac. ix) there is nothing presented to this court for review, and the appeal of this action should be dismissed. Henderson v. Todd, 91 Okla. 18, 215 Pac. 607; Hooker v. Rackley, 90 Okla. 83, 216 Pac. 151.
The plaintiff in error executed a super-sedeas bond in this case in the sum of $500, with S. A. Brown as surety, which bond was dulyi approved as shown by a certified copy thereof attached to the case-made. The defendant in error has filed a motion herein for judgment against the surety on said supersedeas bond for the amount of the judgment rendered in said cause, and said motion is sustained and judgment is hereby entered against S. A. Brown, surety on said bond for the sum of $339.32, with interest at six per cent, from January 1, 1920, and the cost of said action, but in no event shall said judgment, interest, and cost exceed the sum of $500, and for which let execution issue.
By the Court: It is so ordered.