GRAND LODGE v. SCOTT

GRAND LODGE v. SCOTT
1931 OK 107
297 P. 269
147 Okla. 161
Case Number: 19512
Decided: 03/31/1931
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

GRAND LODGE of the BROTHERHOOD of RAILROAD TRAINMEN v. SCOTT.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Briefs--Necessity for Argument and Citation of Authorities.
This court will not examine the record in search of prejudicial errors which are not clearly pointed out and insisted on in the brief of the complaining party, and it is not enough to assert in general terms that the ruling of the trial court is wrong, for on this the point will not be considered as having been made, but counsel should support the same with argument and citation of authority where possible.

Error from Superior Court, Pottawatomie County; Leander G. Pitman, Judge.

Action by Agnes Scott against the Grand Lodge of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Abernathy & Howell, for plaintiff in error.
E. C. Stanard, M. L. Hankins, and Leonard Cary, for defendant in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 In this cause the defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, instituted a suit in the superior court of Pottawatomie county, Okla., against the plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, to recover a money judgment on an insurance policy in which her husband was the insured and in which she was the designated beneficiary. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, judgment was rendered thereon, and the cause came to this court in appeal.

¶2 Here a motion was lodged to dismiss, and under date of January 29, 1929, this court promulgated its opinion in the cause in which it said:

"Upon the second ground for dismissal, that the brief of plaintiff in error does not comply with rule 26 of this court, we have examined the brief of plaintiff in error and fully agree with counsel for defendant in error that the brief of plaintiff in error does not fully comply with rule 26 of this court and is not as complete as rule 26 contemplates."

It declined to dismiss the appeal and cautioned the defendant as follows:

"However, we feel that, under the holding of this court in Royce Wyant v. Henry Levy and Leon Levy, Partners, No. 18,586, 134 Okla. 39, 272 P. at page 851, we would be running contrary to this decision to sustain the motion to dismiss. * * *"

¶3 Since that time more than one year has elapsed and the error in the brief plainly pointed out has not been corrected. The cause has reached its numerical order for a decision. We therefore apply the rule announced in the Wyant Case quoted from.