GULF C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. SHELTON

GULF C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. SHELTON
1915 OK 337
149 P. 131
46 Okla. 536
Case Number: 4017
Decided: 05/18/1915
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO.
v.
SHELTON.

Syllabus

¶0 FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF. Syllabus the same as in No. 4117, Midland Valley Ry. Co. v. Robert Horton, ante.

Error from County Court, Garvin County; W. B. M. Mitchell, Judge.

Action by J. W. Shelton against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.

The plaintiff, in his petition, claims that on the 24th day of February, 1910, be delivered to the defendant, at Wynnewood for transportation to Dallas, a shipment of household goods, and when they arrived they were damaged in the sum of $ 121. The defendant filed an answer in substance stating that the shipment moved under a contract in writing, which was attached to and made a part of the answer, and that by the terms of the contract, which was for a good and valuable consideration, it was provided that the shipper agreed and represented that the value of the goods so shipped was not in excess of $ 10 per hundredweight, and that this represented the value of the goods, and that the goods injured did not weigh in excess of 200 pounds. The defendant tendered the sum of $ 20 and costs, which was refused, and judgment was entered in the court below for the sum of $ 100 and costs.

Cottingham & Bledsoe, Chas. H. Woods, and Geo. M. Green, for plaintiff in error.
J. T. Wheeler, for defendant in error.

DEVEREUX, C.

¶1 (after stating the facts as above). This case was filed in this court on May 29, 1912, and the brief for the plaintiff in error was duly filed and served on July 29, 1912. The case was duly assigned for oral argument in this court on April 20, 1915, and submitted by plaintiff in error on its brief. The defendant in error has never filed a brief, nor is any excuse shown why such brief was not filed. We have examined the record and the brief filed by plaintiff in error, and the brief appears to us to reasonably sustain the assignments of error.

¶2 Under authority of Security Insurance Company v. Droke, 40 Okla. 116, 136 P. 430, we recommend that the judgment below be reversed, and the cause remanded for new trial.

¶3 By the Court: It is so ordered.