Case Name: WESTON, Adm'r, v. BLYTHE
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1924-06-24
Citations: 108 Okla. 55
Docket Number: No. 15343
Parties: WESTON, Adm’r, v. BLYTHE.
Judges: JOHNSON, C. J., and NICHOLSON, HARRISON, and WARREN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 55–56

Head Matter:
WESTON, Adm’r, v. BLYTHE.
No. 15343
Opinion Filed June 24, 1924.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1925.
Application to File Second Petition Denied March 3, 1925.
(Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Frivolous Appeals — Dismissal.
As the third assignee of certain notes secured by real estate mortgage, the defendant in error sued the administrator of the maker of the notes, and to foreclose -the mortgage. The administrator answered by an unverified general denial. The plaintiff established by •competent evidence that he was the owner and holder of -the notes, and same were due and unpaid. No defense of any kind or character appears -in the record other than such as raised' by the general denial, the defendant introducing no testimony of any character. Held, under this state of facts, that the appeal from the judgment of the trial court is frivolous, and should be dismissed.
Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Z. I. J. Holt, Judge.
Action by James Blythe against W. B. Weston, administrator. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Dismissed.
Pratt & Springer., for plaintiff in error.
O. A. Siteele, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
BRANSON, J.
T.his matter is now before tins court on the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the defendant in error, on the' ground principle that this appeal is frivolous. The defendant in error, as plaintiff, sued the plaintiff in error, as defendant, on promissory notes, and the foreclosure of real estate mortgage given to secure the same. The notes and the mortgages were executed by W. A. Ooleman and Mattie B. Coleman to J. B. McAnaly, and by the payee assigned in due course to S. W. Mitcbell, who in due course assigned the same to this defendant in error. Upon the notes and the mortgages duly pleaded, the plaintiff in error in the court below answered by way of an unverified general denial. The defendant in error, as plaintiff, established by evidence undisputed1 that he was the owner and holder of the notes and mortgage. No evidence was introduced by the defendant, who is now the plaintiff in error in this court. There is nothing in the pleadings' as made up which showed any defense whatever as against the notes sued on. The record forces us to the conclusion that this appeal is frivolous, and should be dismissed.
The motion, therefore, to dismiss on the ground that the appeal is frivolous is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and NICHOLSON, HARRISON, and WARREN, JJ., concur.