Case Name: EL RENO VITRIFIED BRICK & TILE CO. et al. v. L. M. RUMSEY MFG. CO.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1915-05-18
Citations: 47 Okla. 429
Docket Number: No. 4777
Parties: EL RENO VITRIFIED BRICK & TILE CO. et al. v. L. M. RUMSEY MFG. CO.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
EL RENO VITRIFIED BRICK & TILE CO. et al. v. L. M. RUMSEY MFG. CO.
No. 4777.
Opinion Filed May 18, 1915.
(149 Pac. 1143.)
Error from District Court, Canadian County; John J. Carney, Judge.
Action by the L. M. Rumsey Manufacturing Company against the El Reno Vitrified Brick & Tile Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error..
Dismissed.
Fogg & Bennett, for plaintiffs in error.
W. M. Wallace, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
KANE, C. J.
This cause comes on for hearing upon a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant in error, upon the ground that "the case-made before the court shows on its face that there was no issue made by the defendants below by the answer filed to plaintiff's cause of action, and that it is apparent from the assignments of error and the plead ings as set forth herein that said cause was appealed to this court for delay." The motion, to dismiss is unresisted, and, as the record seems to justify the criticism of counsel for defendant in error, the motion to dismiss must be sustained. Releford et al. v. State, 45 Okla. 433, 146 Pac. 27.
All the Justices concur.