Case Name: BURGESS et al. v. CRUMP
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1923-01-16
Citations: 88 Okla. 126
Docket Number: No. 13010
Parties: BURGESS et al. v. CRUMP.
Judges: JOHNSON, V. C. J., and McNETLL, KANE, NICHOLSON, and BRANSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 126–126

Head Matter:
BURGESS et al. v. CRUMP.
No. 13010
Opinion Filed Jan. 16, 1923.
(•Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Frivolous Appeal — Action on Note.
Where plaintiff sues upon a promissory note and defendant answers by an unverified general denial, and upon motion of plaintiff judgment is rendered for plaintiff on the pleadings, an appeal, assigning the rendition of such judgment as error, without stating any defense to plaintiff® action, will he dismissed as frivolous. Bilby v. Cochran et al., 47 Olda. 545, 149 Pac. 143.
Error from District Court, Seminole County; John L. Coffman, Judge.
Action by George C. Crump against John Burgess and Jaenette Burgess. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Dismissed.
(Tom D. McKeown and Pryor & Stokes, for plaintiffs in error.
Crump & Hall, -Cobb & Nichols, and H. W. Comer, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
KENNAMEB, J.
George C. Crump, the defendant in error, has filed motion to dismiss this appeal prosecuted by John Burgess and Jaenette Burgess, plaintiffs in error, and for grounds of the motion states that this action was instituted in the district court of Seminole county by the defendant in error, as plaintiff in the trial court, to recover upon a promissory note secured by chattel mortgage on personal property. The petition filed by the plaintiff in the district court was in usual form for an action to recover upon a promissory note, and had attached to it as exhibits copies of the note and mortgage upon which the plaintiff sought to recover. The defendants in the action filed an unverified general denial as their answer. Plaintiff filed motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court sustained and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The motion to dismiss the appeal is upon the specific grounds that the same is frivolous.
It is plain that under numerous authorities of this court the motion to dismiss must be sustained. In Bilby v. Cochran et. al., 47 Okla. 545, 149 Pac. 143. this eouit held:
"Where plaintiff sues upon a promissory note and defendant answers by an unverified general denial, and upon motion of plaintiff judgment is rendered for plaintiff on the pleadings, an appeal, assigning the rendition of such judgment as error, without stating any defence to plaintiff's action, will be dismissed as frivolous."
Other authorities to the same effect are? Bilby et al. v. National Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Mo., 53 Okla. 566, 157 Pac. 1198; Buell v. Oil Well Supply Co., 76 Okla. 174, 184 Pac. 572; Miller et al. v. Dunn Commission Co., 77 Okla. 119, 187 Pac. 213.
In view of the well-established rule by these authorities, the motion to dismiss the appeal herein is sustained, and the appeal dismissed.
JOHNSON, V. C. J., and McNETLL, KANE, NICHOLSON, and BRANSON, JJ., concur.