Title: FINCH v. SMITH
Citation: 178 Okla. 541, 1936 OK 839, 63 P.2d 692
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: December 22, 1936

FINCH v. SMITH Annotate this Case FINCH v. SMITH 1936 OK 839 63 P.2d 692 178 Okla. 541 Case Number: 26564 Decided: 12/22/1936 Supreme Court of Oklahoma FINCH v. SMITH Syllabus ¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR - Dismissal Upon Failure to Respond to Motion to Dismiss Upon Jurisdictional Grounds. Where the defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss upon jurisdictional grounds, and this court has ordered the plaintiff in error to respond thereto and no response has been filed, it is not the duty of this court to inquire further into the jurisdiction where the authorities cited by the movant reasonably sustain the lack of jurisdiction. Appeal from Superior Court, Okmulgee County; Harland A.Carter, Judge. Action to quiet title by Madalyn Finch and another against C.M. Smith. From a judgment for the defendant, plaintiff appeals. Dismissed. James M. Hays, for plaintiffs in error. Cochran & Noble and John L. Norman, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. ¶1 This cause arises upon a motion to dismiss for the reason that in Finch v. Smith, 177 Okla. 307 , 58 P.2d 850 , opinion rendered April 7, 1936, between the same parties this court decided all of the matters now before this court in this cause. ¶2 On June 30, 1936, this court called for a response from plaintiff in error and none has been filed. In French v. Bragg, No. 26885, opinion filed March 17, 1936, 177 Okla. 43 , 55 P.2d 953, we said: "Where the defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss upon jurisdictional grounds, and this court has ordered the plaintiff in error to respond thereto and no response has been filed, it is not the duty of this court to inquire further into the jurisdiction where the authorities cited by the movant reasonably sustain the lack of jurisdiction." ¶3 The appeal is therefore dismissed.