ORIENTAL CEMENT PLASTER CO. v. ROMAN NOSE GYPSUM CO.

Annotate this Case

ORIENTAL CEMENT PLASTER CO. v. ROMAN NOSE GYPSUM CO.
1915 OK 1095
153 P. 861
54 Okla. 330
Case Number: 6186
Decided: 12/21/1915
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

ORIENTAL CEMENT PLASTER CO.
v.
ROMAN NOSE GYPSUM CO.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Affirmance--Failure to File Brief. Where the plaintiff in error fails to file brief, as required by rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 P. ix), and it appears from the record that in taking the appeal the plaintiff in error gave a supersedeas bond, and where the plaintiff in error does not appear but defendant in error appears on the day case is set for submission, and so moves, the judgment will be affirmed.

Error from District Court, Blaine County; James R. Tolbert, Judge.

Action by the Roman Nose Gypsum Company against the Oriental Cement Plaster Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

E. E. Blake and A. T. Boys, for plaintiff in error
Seymour Foose and R. C. Brown, for defendant in error

WATTS, C.

¶1 This proceeding in error, in the form of a transcript and petition in error, was filed in this court on March 21, 1914, and the case was regularly set for submission on December 13, 1915. The plaintiff in error has failed to serve or file a brief as required by rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 P. ix), and failed to appear on the day set for submission, although the defendant in error appeared by counsel and moved the court to affirm the judgment of the lower court.

¶2 The transcript of the record shows that the plaintiff in error gave a supersedeas bond staying the execution of the judgment pending the appeal. On the authority of Merchants' & Planters' Ins. Co. v. Crane, 31 Okla. 713, 123 P. 1126; McKain v. J. I. Case Th. M. Co., 35 Okla. 164, 128 P. 895; Berry v. Woodward, 38 Okla. 468, 133 P. 1127; Moore v. Adams, 40 Okla. 100, 136 P. 410; Magee v. Litchfield, 50 Okla. 360, 151 P. 575--we affirm the judgment of the lower court.

¶3 By the Court: It is so ordered.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.